Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.


Calcutta High Court
Akbar Ali Mahomed vs Emperor on 9 September, 1914
Equivalent citations: (1915) ILR 42 Cal 706
Author: J A Teunon
Bench: Jenkins, Teunon

JUDGMENT

Jenkins, C.J. and Teunon, J.

1. In this case the accused petitioner had been required to furnish security for good behaviour under Section 118, read with, Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereupon he offered two sureties, and the matter was referred by the Magistrate to the police for enquiry. The police submitted a report to the effect that the sureties were not acceptable; and, proceeding upon that report, the Magistrate refused to accept the sureties. It has been repeatedly pointed out that sureties offered should not he refused except alter judicial enquiry by the Magistrate who has made the order under Section 118, such enquiry to be made under the provisions of Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Bale was, therefore, granted calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why the petitioner should not he given an opportunity of showing that the sureties offered were fit to be accepted. No cause has been shown and on the facts we have stated we make this Rule absolute, and direct that the Magistrate do now hold an enquiry in accordance with law, and upon the enquiry decide whether the sureties offered axe or are not fit persons.

2. Pending this further enquiry the sureties offered will be provisionally accepted.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Loading Facebook Comments ...
Loading Disqus Comments ...