The bail bond of the accused was forfeited when he did not appear before the court on the specified date. As it was found that the surety had died two months ago, the court directed his heirs to deposit the surety amount. When the heirs appealed, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that as Section 446 of the CrPC provides that when the surety dies before the bond is forfeited his debts shall be discharged from all liabilities, the appellants were not liable to deposit the surety amount. (Ram Singh & others vs the state of Madhya Pradesh).
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting a licence for holding recitals of Indian classical dance in a hotel. While his application was pending, four hotels obtained similar licences. Meanwhile, the government put out an order prohibiting the issue of fresh licences. The Madras High Court held such order as unconstitutional, the same being violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution (freedom to practise any profession or carry out any occupation, trade or business). The court, however, held that the government was at liberty to regulate such performance in public interest (Dinesh M.M. vs Union Territory of Pondicherry).
An agriculturist filed a writ petition on being refused a licence for a gun which he needed for the purpose of crop protection. Section 13 (3) of the Arms Act permits a citizen to possess a gun of specified quality for bona fide crop protection. Setting aside the order of rejection, the Madras High Court held that when the Arms Act specifically permits the possession of a gun for bona fide crop protection, the authorities could not refuse the same on the ground that a gun was not required for crop protection. The court directed that the application be considered afresh on merit (K. Mani vs the district revenue officer of Madras and another).
SOLON
