Judgment

KHANNA, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave by Ram Narain Singh and six others against the judgment of Patna High Court, whereby their revision petition was dismissed in limine.

2. There was a dispute between the appellants on the one side and Ram Prasad and others on the opposite side in respect of plot No.23 situated in village Beayapur in District Patna. Proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were taken in September, 1958 because of that dispute. In October, 1959 dispute again arose between the parties because of the alleged braking of the idol of Durga by some of the appellants. The idol was stated to have been installed by Ram Prasad. The breaking of the idol gave rise to a criminal case against Ram Narain Singh and Arjan Singh. The accused were, however, stated to have been acquitted in that case. On May 7, 1959 Ram Prasad filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Dinapur against the appellants and some others for taking action under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that application it was stated that there was a mango crop in the land of Ram Prasad and the appellants and their companions wanted to cause loss to Ram Prasad. The appellants, it was further stated used to carry lathis and held out threats to Ram Prasad. The learned magistrate sent that application to the police. The police then submitted a report and two cross cases were started against the opposite parties under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notices were thereafter issued to the parties to furnish bond. The appellants denied the allegations against them and stated that they were peace loving citizens. They denied having held out any threat to Ram Prasad or having removed his mango fruits. The learned magistrate ordered the appellants to furnish bonds in the sum of Rupees 2,000 with two sureties each for the same amount for one year, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months.

3. On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge Patna reduced the amount of bond to Rupees 1,000 with two sureties of Rupees 500 each for a period of one year. In default each of the appellants was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months. The appeal of one Arjan Singh, who had also been ordered to be bound down was allowed. The High Court dismissed in limine the Criminal revision filed by the appellants.

4. Mr. U. P. Singh on behalf of the appellants has contended in this Court that as the matter relates to the year 1959, it would not be proper to bind down the appellants in the year 1972. It is pointed out that because of the stay orders granted by the different Courts, no bond has so far been furnished by the appellants. As against that, Mr. Bindra on behalf of the State has urged that this Court should not interfere with the order of the Courts below.

5. Under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class may require a person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix, if such Magistrate is informed that the said person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may occasion breach of peace, or disturb public tranquillity and if the Magistrate is further of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against that person. The underlying object of the section is preventive and not penal. The section is designed to enable the magistrate to take measures with a view to prevent commission of offences involving breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. Wide powers have been conferred on the magistrates specified in this section and as the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guilty of an offence, it is es