SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Kar) 274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MYSORE
C. Honniah, J.
Reddy Channabasavanna Goud and others —Appellant
Vs.
The State of Mysore and others —Respondent
Decided on : 30-08-1972

Penal action cannot be taken against a citizen unless warranted by the law, and the conditions required under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be met before taking any action.

Headnote:

Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code - Breach of Peace - 143, 147, 352, 379, 448 of IPC - The court discussed the application of Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the specific acts alleged against the petitioners. It highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that penal action cannot be taken against a citizen unless warranted by the law. The court found that the alleged acts did not meet the conditions required under Section 107, and therefore, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were alleged to have committed various acts leading to a likelihood of breach of peace. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence to prove the conditions required under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasized that no penal action can be taken against a citizen unless warranted by the law.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the alleged acts of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the alleged acts did not meet the conditions required under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and therefore, there was no legal justification for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take action under that section.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was set aside.

ORDER

C. Honniah, J.—The petitioners 40 in number belong to the village of Hirebannimatti in the district of Bellary where there are two parties one led by Reddy Channabasavanna Goud (petitioner No. 1) and another led by BeKary Basalingappa. Bellary Basalingappa made a complaint to the police of Hadagalli stating that some of the petitioners trespassed into his house and committed theft of foodgrains on 3-5-1972. The Sub-Inspector of Police sent a report to the Sub' Divisional Magistrate, Hospet to take action under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioners as there was likelihood of breach of peace. His sworn statement was recorded. Whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code as follows:

Whereas it has been made to appear to me from the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hirehadagalli dated 7-5-1972 and his sworn statement dated 11-5-1972.

1. By about 20-10-1971 respondents 10 to 13 trespassed into the land of one Bellary Basalingappa and removed the fence and E. P. set and threatened the said Basalingappa to do away with his life.

2. On 26-11-1971 at about 3-00 P.M. respondents 1, 6, 11, 14 and 16 entered the Engine room of the garden of Basalingappa and removed the parts "of E. P. Engine.

3. On 3-5-1972 at about 9-00 P.M. respondents 1. 3 to 7, 9 to 11 and 14 to 40 having formed into an unlawful assembly trespassed into the house of Sri A. Basalingappa, used criminal force and committed theft of foodgrains and agricultural implements valued at Rs. 400-00. A case is in the S. No. 8/72 under Sections 143, 147, 352, 379 and 448 of IPC under investigation.

4. B. Basalingappa lodged a private complaint in the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Hadagalli against respondents 1, 3 to 7, 10, 11, 14 to 16, 18 to 20. Respondents 25 and 26, 33, 38 and 40 under Sections 143, 147, 379, 447, IPC and the case P. T. m C.C. No. 111/72;

Likewise the above respondents are apt to commit any act which occasion breach-of peace or disturb the public tranquillity.

In view of the above the undersigned' has got sufficient grounds to believe that an offence under Section 107, Cr.PC is imminent in Hirebannimatti village (Hadagalli Taluk). Hence the respondents 1 ta 40 are hereby called upon to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 500-00 each with a sufficient surety for equal, sum to keep-peace and maintain law and order in Hirebannimatti village for a period of one year,"

2. The petitioners have challenged' the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that legally no proceedings could be taken against them on the allegations made by Bellary Basalingappa and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hadagalli and that the order complained of was consequently bad in law. From the order of the-Sub-Divisional Magistrate it is clear that some of the petitioners are not at all connected with any of the allegations made by Bellary Basalingappa or by the Sub-Inspector of Police. In regard to an incident that happened on or about 20-10-1971 Bellary Basalingappa made a complaint to the police alleging that, petitioners 10, 11, 12 and 13, trespassed into his land and removed the-fence and electric pump set and threatened"' him to do away with his life. No action has been taken with regard to this complaint as the order itself discloses. In regard to an incident that is alleged to have taken place on 26-11-71 the said Basalingappa made a complaint alleging that, petitioners 1, 6, 11, 14 and 16 entered the engine room of his garden and removed the fence and electric pump set. Regarding that also no action has been taken. With respect to other incident alleged to have taken place-on 3-5-1972 the same Basalingappa has made a complaint alleging that petitioners 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 11 and 14 to 40 trespassed into his house and committed theft of foodgrains amf agricultural implements. Regarding this it is. Seen that the investigation is pending.





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top