1976 Supreme(Bom) 133
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
DESHMUKH AND NAIK, JJ.
Dwarkanath Ramchandra Angachekar and others, Accused-Petitioners
versus
The State of Maharashtra and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appln. No.1950 of 1976
Decided on : 31 -7 -1976.
C.J. Sabnis, for Accused-Petitioners; H.A. Solkar. Public Prosecutor, for the State.
The inquiry under Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, commences when the order under Section 111 is read over to the person concerned and the substance thereof is explained, if desired, or when the person appears or is brought before the Court in compliance with a summons or warrant issued under Section 113.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 116(6) - INQUIRY COMMENCEMENT - INTERPRETATION - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLE - CATEGORY AND SUB-CATEGORY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the Magistrate's order rejecting their application to terminate proceedings under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arguing that the inquiry had commenced on October 2, 1975, and was not completed within six months, resulting in the proceedings' termination on April 2, 1976, under Section 116(6).
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the inquiry under Section 116 commenced on October 2, 1975, when the petitioners appeared before the Court in response to the summons issued under Section 113, and the order under Section 111 was explained to them. As a result, the proceedings stood terminated on April 2, 1976, due to the mandatory provisions of Section 116(6), since more than six months had passed since the commencement date and no order directing the continuance of the proceedings beyond six months had been issued by the Magistrate.
Issues: 1. When does an inquiry in a proceeding under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, commence? 2. How are the provisions of Section 116(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, interpreted in relation to the commencement and completion of an inquiry?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The inquiry under Section 116 commences when the order under Section 111 is read over to the person concerned and the substance thereof is explained, if desired, or when the person appears or is brought before the Court in compliance with a summons or warrant issued under Section 113. 2. Section 116(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandates that an inquiry under Section 116 shall be completed within six months from the date of its commencement, and if not completed, the proceedings shall stand terminated unless the Magistrate directs otherwise for special reasons recorded in writing.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the Magistrate's order was quashed, and the petitioners' bail bonds were canceled.
NAIK, J. :- This petition raises a rather important question as to when an inquiry in a proceeding under Sec.118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be held to have commenced.
2. The question arises under the following circumstances: report under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, was made by the police against the petitioners to the Judicial Magistrate, Vengurla, on September 3, 1975. On that very day the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, below the said report of the police which was numbered as Chapter Case No.2 of 1975. As the opponents-present petitioners, were not present, a summons was issued to them under Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appear in Court on October 2, 1975. On that date the opponents did appear along with their advocate in obedience to the summons. As is clear from the roznama of that date the order under Section 111, which was passed by the learned Magistrate being read over and explained to them they were also supplied with a copy of that order. The petitioners also executed bail bonds as directed by the Magistrate. But then the learned Magistrate without proceeding with the inquiry on that very day adjourned the case to November 15, 1975 for recording their plea. The case was thereafter adjourned by the Magistrate on his own from time to time till January 15, 1976. It was on that last adjourned date that the plea of the petitioners was recorded and the case was adjourned to January 30, 1976 for recording evidence. The roznama does not say what happened on that day. It appears that on that day also the case was not taken up for hearing but only witness summonses were issued and the case was posted for hearing on February 10, 1976. Once again on that day the case was adjourned on the report of the Prosecutor stating, inter alia, that the case may be adjourned as one of the witnesses wanted to engage a private pleader. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time till April 7, 1976 and it was on April 7, 1976 that the petitioners made an application (Ex.10) stating, inter alia, that since on the facts of this case the enquiry had already commenced on October 2, 1975 and it was not completed within a period of six months from that date and the Magistrate bad also not given any special reasons for not completing the enquiry within the said period of six months, the proceedings stood terminated on April 2, 1976 under sub-section (6) of Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. The learned Magistrate observed that since according to the order sheet it appeared that the allegations in the report giving rise to the proceedings were explained to the opponents and their plea was recorded on January 15, 1976 and the next date was fixed for hearing on February 10, 1976 the date of commencement of the inquiry in this case would be February 10, 1976 and in that view he held that six months had not yet elapsed from the said date of commencement of the inquiry. Consistently with that view he rejected the petitioners' application and directed that the case shall be proceeded with on the next adjourned date.
4. It is the propriety of the said order which is challenged by this petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
5. The provisions about security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour are to be found in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Section 106 deals with cases of security for keeping the peace on conviction.
7. Section 107 deals with the security for keeping the peace in other cases.
8. Section 108 deals with security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters.
9. Section 109 deals with security for good behaviour from suspected persons.
10. Section 110 deals with security for good behaviour from habitual offenders.
11. Section 111 provides that-
"When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110, de