Anwar Ahmad v. State of U.P. (Supreme Court of India, September 12, 1975; Fazal Ali, J.; Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1975, by special leave from Allahabad High Court Criminal Revision No. 2475 of 1971). The appellant, who had bought a car on hire-purchase and reported its fraudulent taking, received it back from the police on supardnama against a personal bond to produce it in court, failing which he was bound to pay Rs. 5,000/-. On his failure to produce the car, the munsiff magistrate, Meerut forfeited the bond under section 514 CrPC 1898; the Sessions Judge and the Allahabad High Court upheld the forfeiture. HELD, allowing the appeal: (i) section 514(1) shows that a bond for production of property seized by the police must be executed before the Court, and a bond can be forfeited only if executed before a Court, a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class (police may take only appearance bonds under s.170(2)); (ii) on seizure, the police were duty-bound under section 523 to report the matter to the magistrate for an order on custody, which was not done; (iii) neither section 523 nor Regulation 165(ii) of the U.P. Police Regulations authorises the police to take a bond from the person entrusted with the property, since bond execution involves civil liability and belongs before a court. The bond executed before the police officer was therefore not one contemplated by section 514 and could not be forfeited - Rameshwar Bhartia v. The State of Assam, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 405, relied on; unless a personal bond for production of property is executed before a court, it is not valid in law. Orders of the courts below set aside; appellant discharged from the bond. OBSERVATION: even the new (1973) Code has no express provision empowering police to take such bonds; the Government was advised to amend the Code, while the Court refrained from comment on any other liability of the appellant.
