The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the procedural requirements under Section 107 and 111 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for a full-fledged judicial enquiry and the application of the Magistrate's judicial mind.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. Ferreira, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhobe, the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents/State.

3. The petitioners have filed this Petition challenging the order dated 08.01.2021 in Criminal Revision Application No. 47/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Goa at Mapusa.

4. It is submitted that on the basis of information of the Valpoi Police dated 04.09.2020, the petitioners received a notice entitled “Order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.” dated 11.09.2020. By this notice, the petitioners are directed to attend the office of the respondent no. 2 and to show cause as to why they should not be made to execute the bond of Rs.10,000/- and to give further security bond by furnishing one surety of the like amount to maintain peace and tranquility for six months.

5. The petitioners appeared and filed their say on 17.09.2020 denying the contents. It is submitted that the learned Deputy Collector vide roznama order dated 17.09.2020 concluded the proceedings without even conducting any enquiry directing the petitioners to execute a bond for maintaining peace. The petitioners were also directed to report on every Wednesday of the week to the P.I. of Valpoi Police Station from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. for six months. Being aggrieved by this order dated 17.09.2020, the petitioners preferred Revision Petition before the Sessions Court vide Criminal Revision Application No. 47/2020. The said Revision was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2021.

6. The said order is being challenged mainly on the ground that learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the contentions and has not even bothered to consider the basic parameters required to be applied in dealing with cases under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Section 107 of Cr.P.C. mandates that action is to be taken “in the manner hereinafter provided” and this clearly indicates that it is not open to the Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on citation Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Monghir & Others reported in 1970(3) SCC 746. It is the decision of the Bench constituted of 7 Judges, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:

“This provision is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous, that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasize the safeguards built into the procedure because from there will arise the consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public order or in the interest of the general public”.

8. It is submitted that the other ground for challenge is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the plea of the Petitioners that the Magistrate is bound to set forth the “substance of the information” and the notice issued by the Magistrate did not even contain any material particulars, except to state that the proceedings were being initiated on the basis of a report of the Police Inspector, Valpoi Police Station and the other details were neither spelt out nor copy of the report was furnished. It is also submitted that there was no summons along with the order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., which is mandatory. Though it is permissible to incorporate order in the summons, yet the order must be with proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. There is nothing mentioned in the notice about what information is received.

9. It is submitted that the object of the proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. is preventive and not for punishment of the offence. The enquiry is necessary under Section 116 of Cr.P.C., which is necessa