Harington, J.:— In this case a person named Sahebullah, who was accused of had livelihood, appeared before the Deputy Magistrate on the 2nd December, 1901. The case was fixed for December the 9th, and the accused was released on bail, the Petitioner standing as surety for him. On the 7th December the case was transferred from the file of the Deputy Magistrate to the file of the District Magistrate. The accused appeared before the District Magistrate on the 9th December, but on the 12th December he absconded. Under these circumstances an order has been made forfeiting the bond executed by the Petitioner as surety, and this rule has been granted calling upon the Magistrate to show cause why that order should not be set aside on the ground that there has been no breach of the condition of the bond. A reference to the bond shows that what the surety guaranteed was that the accused person should attend at the Court of Babu Kherode Chandra Sen on everyday on which the preliminary enquiry into the charge against him was being made; that is to say, that he should appear at the Court of the Deputy Magistrate, Babu Kherode Chandra Sen. The breach of the condition is stated to be the non-appearance of the accused at the Court of the District Magistrate on the 12th December. That, in our opinion, is not a breach of the condition of the bond, because the Petitioner only guaranteed the appearance of the accused before the Deputy Magistrate, and he did not guarantee that the accused would appear before the District Magistrate ??? before any person other than the Deputy Magistrate. No breach therefore ??? condition of the surety bond has been proved. The rule is therefore made absolute, and we direct that the penalty, if paid, or so much of it as may have been paid be refunded.
S.C.S
Rule made absolute.