Govinder Singh Verma vs Bachubhai I. Pestonji

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(SC) 563

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.N. RAY AND D.G. PALEKAR, JJ.
Govinder Singh Verma and another, Appellants
Versus
Mrs. Banchubhai I. Pastonji and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 1968, D/- 21-10-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. Ajit Singh Johar, Advocate, M/s. S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, Advocates of M/s. K. L. Mehta and Co., for Appellants; Mr. H. R. Khanna, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2. 529

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 108,109,110,112,91,435, 117 (3) - Application - Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters - Respondent filed an application and lodged a complaint in Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Poona under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that appellants had threatened to kill son respondent and threatened to endanger safety of members of respondent s family - A notice was issued by Magistrate requiring appellants to appear in Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Poona and to show cause why they should not be asked to furnish a surety and a personal bond for a sum each for a period of one year for ensuring non-committal of any act on part of appellants in future that might result in a breach of peace - Held, High Court held that bonds in present case were directed to be executed for keeping peace - Counsel for appellants contended that surety bonds in present case would amount to furnishing bail - That is totally misreading order - That is totally misreading order - Additional Collector and thereafter High Court both correctly held that surety bonds were directed for keeping peace - Section 117 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure confers power on Magistrate to direct person in respect of whom order under Section 112 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been made to execute a bond for keeping peace - Respondent lodged a complaint under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure - Magistrate examined appellants and Sub-Inspector - Magistrate has also passed an order under Section 112 of Code of Criminal Procedure requiring each of appellants to show caused why he should not be asked to furnish a surety and a personal bond for maintaining peace - Appeal dismissed

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The case involves an appeal against an order issued by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, related to threats made by the appellants against the respondent's family members (!) (!) .
The Magistrate ordered the appellants to execute bonds for maintaining peace, which the appellants contended amounted to bail. However, both the Additional Collector and the High Court clarified that these bonds were meant to ensure peace, not bail (!) .
The order under consideration was issued under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the power to direct such bonds is conferred by Section 117 (3) of the Code. This section allows a Magistrate to require a person to execute a bond for keeping peace, especially when an order under Section 112 has been made (!) .
The appellant's argument that bonds could only be directed in cases under Sections 108, 109, or 110 was rejected. The court clarified that the proviso to Section 117 (3) applies only to those specific sections, and the present case under Section 107 falls outside that proviso (!) .
The courts correctly held that the bonds were valid orders intended to maintain peace, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly (!) (!) .
The legal reasoning emphasizes that the purpose of such bonds is preventive, aimed at ensuring non-violation of peace, and not equivalent to bail or other forms of security for appearance in court (!) .

Would you like a detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?

Judgment

RAY, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 10 June, 1968 of the High Court at Bombay refusing to set aside the order dated 11 December, 1967 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona.

2. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate came to be passed under the following circumstances. On 3 March, 1967 the respondent Mrs. Pestonji filed an application and lodged a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the appellants had threatened to kill the son of the respondent Mrs. Pestonji and threatened to endanger the safety of the members of the respondent s family. On 10 May, 1967 a notice was issued by the Magistrate requiring the appellants to appear in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona and to show cause why they should not be asked to furnish a surety and a personal bond for a sum of Rupees 1000/- each for a period of one year for ensuring non-committal of any act on the part of the appellants in future that might result in a breach of the peace. On 10 May, 1967 the appellant Govinder Singh appeared before the Magistrate and his statement was recorded. The appellant Govinder Singh said that he was not ready to give in writing any surety or any bond. The appellant Narinder Singh was also examined by the Magistrate on 10 May, 1967. He also said that he was not willing to give in writing any surety or any bond. The case was adjourned from time to time until 3 August, 1967. On that date, the Sub-Inspector of Ghorpadi Police Station was examined. On 11 November, 1967 the appellant Narinder Singh was not present in Court. The case was adjourned till 23 November, 1967. On that date the appellants attended the Court.

3. On 11 December, 1967 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona passed an order as follows:-

"This is a case under Section 107, Criminal P. C. against two opponents Givinder Singh Verma, Narinder Singh Virdi and D. D. Zagade. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that there is a quarrel, threat given to the applicant Bachubhai T. Pestonji. The statement of witness No. 1 Jarauddin Hamifuddin Sheikh Police Sub-Inspector recorded on 3-8-67 clearly shows that there is likelihood of a breach of peace and in order to prevent quarrel, thereafter and a cognizable offence being committed by the opponents, I order that the opponents should execute a bond of Rupees 1000/- each with one surety of the like amount for their appearance in this Court under Section 91 of Criminal P. C."

4. The appellants then made an application under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Additional Collector and the Additional District Magistrate, Poona against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed on 11 December, 1967. The Collector on 19 December, 1967 upheld the order as one under Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate wrongly mentioned Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in place of Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. On 16 January, 1968 the appellants made an application in revision to the High Court at Bombay against the order of the Collector. By an order dated 10 June, 1968 the High Court found that the additional Collector rightly held that the order of he Sub-Divisional Magistrate was wrongly stated to be under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the Additional Collector had confirmed the findings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by holding that the order was under Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court held that the bonds in the present case were directed to be executed for keeping the peace.

6. Counsel for the appellants contended that the surety bonds in the present case would amount to furnishing bail. That is totally misreading the order. That is totally misreading the order. The Additional Collector and thereafter the High Court both correctly

Click Here to Read the rest of this document