032-NLR-NLR-V-26-CHUNALICE-v.-SAUNDIAS-APPU.pdf
( 191 )
Present: Jayewardene A.J.
CHUN ALICE d. SAUNDIAS APBU.
442—P. C. Mataraf 30,944.
Case laid over till the decision of connected case—Parties ordered to appearon notice—Accused absent—Forfeiture of hail bond—Court has nopower to postpone case indefinitely.
This case was laid over till the decision of a connected' case, andthe Court ordered parties to appear on notice. After the decisionof the connected case, the accused did not' appear as notice couldnot have been served. The Magistrate forfeited the bail bond.The surety appealed.
Held, that the Courthas nopower to postpone a case indefinitely.
A date shouldbe fixedon which accused should attend Court.The
forfeiture of the bail bond was wrong.
fjpHE facts are set out in the judgment.
H. V. Perera fob appellant.
August 8, 1924. Jayewardene A.J.—
This is an appeal from an order against a surety forfeiting a bailbond. The appellant stood security for one Don Hewage John whowas charged with anoffencebeforethe Police Court of Matara.He
was released on bailon hisgivingsecurity in the surii of Es.200.
The appellant bound himself ag surety for the payment of Bs. 200*if the accused failed to attend to answer |he charge on May 9, 1924,and on any subsequent date on which he might be required to attenduntil otherwise directed by the Court. This case seems to beconnected with some other case, and after some evidence had beenrecorded on May 30, 1924; it was agreed that this case should be laid
1924.
1924.
Jaxbwab-
DENE AJT.
Chunaiice
v.
Saundiaa
Appu
( 192 )
over till the decision in appeal of the connected case, and the Courtmade this entry: ** Parties to appear on notice.*' After the decision'of that case in appeal, the proceedings in the present case were resumedon June 21, 1924, when the accused were noticed to appear on July 8.On July 8 the first accused wap present, and the second, accusedJohn had not been served with notice and was absent. The Magis-trate thereupon directed notice to be served upon the ^surety. Thesurety was present on July 18, but the second accused against whoma warrant had been issued was not produced. – Thereupon, the suretywas called upon to show cause why the bond should not be enforced.He said: M I have no cause to show, I beg for pardon.** The Courtthen directed that the surety*s bond be enforced. The suretyappeals against this order, and it is contended for him that as nodate was fixed, when the case was laid over until the decision of theconnected case, for the accused to attend Court, but it was directedthat the accused should attend on notice, and as the notice issued onthe second accused had not been served, it could not be said thathe had failed to attend when required by the Court, with the conse-quence that the surety was not hound to produce the man in Courtunless he had been served with the notice issued by the Court, asobserved by Withers J. in the case of Mathews v. Muniandi,1 1 aminclined to agree with the observations of Withers J. that the Courthas no power to postpone a case indefinitely, but that when a case islaid over until the decision of another case, a date should be fixed onwhich the accused should attend Court. A bail bond wasenforced in that case, and the order of enforcement was set aside onthe ground that there had been no breach of his undertaking by thesurety. I have also been referred to another case in which a similarview has been taken (Muttiah v. Murugiah3). In view of thesejudgments, I think the order of forfeiture in this case is wrong.
I therefore set. aside the order appealed against and order thereoall of the warrant issued against the surety,
Rat. aside.
1 {1892) 3 N. L. R. 122. .3 {1913) 1 Wijewardene's Rep. 9.