PATNA HIGH COURT
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
Ramsaran Singh
Versus
Ramakant Prasad
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 29, 1961
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 107, 112, 113, 114, 117 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTIONS 112 AND 117 - COMPOSITE ORDER UNDER SECTIONS 112 AND 117 (3) - ILLEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Barh passed an order under Section 112 and Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the petitioners to execute a bond for maintaining good behavior for a period of one year. The petitioners challenged the order on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass a composite order under both sections.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Magistrate had acted illegally in passing a composite order under Section 112 and Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that Section 112 and Section 117 postulate two different procedures, for two different ends, and, as such, a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order Under Sec.117 (3) along with one Under Sec.112.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass a composite order under Section 112 and Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 2. Whether the Magistrate had acted illegally in passing the order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 107 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Magistrate, if he decides to proceed thereunder, can require the person concerned to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for "keeping the peace"; and, not for "maintaining good behaviour". 2. Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that when a Magistrate acting Under Sec.107 has decided to act thereunder, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth, inter alia, the substance of the information received on which the action is being taken. 3. Section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Magistrate can direct the person in respect of whom the order Under Sec.113 has been made to execute a bond, ... for keeping the peace or ... until the conclusion of the inquiry, .... 4. Section 117 (3) in express terms requires that, if the Magistrate contemplates to take action thereunder, he can do so for reasons to be recorded in writing", and, as such, reasons have to be recorded in writing for taking action under Sub-section (3) of Sec.117 pending the conclusion of the inquiry.
Final Decision: The court accepted the reference and quashed the order of June 3, 1960, of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Barh.
Rajkishore Prasad, J.
1. This is a reference, Under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), by the Second Additional Sessions Judge of Patna, recommending that order No. 8 dated the 3rd June, i960, of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Barh, should be set aside.
2. The material portion of the impugned order is in these terms:
8. 3-6-60-F.P. has filed a petition. Heard the-parties lawyer. Draw proceeding Under Sec.107 Criminal Procedure Code against members of the O.P. asking them to execute a bond of Rs. 1000.00 with two sureties of like amount for a period of one year for maintaining good behaviour and an interim bond Under Sec.117 (3) Criminal Procedure Code.
3. The learned Judge, in his letter of reference, has discussed, both law and facts, in a very-clear and convincing manner and has given good legal reasons for quashing the said order. The reasons given by the learned Judge, for setting aside the order complained of, are:
(1) that in a proceeding Under Sec.107 of the Code the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to call upon the second. party to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour;
2. that if an action Under Sec.117 (3) of the Code was contemplated to be taken by the Magistrate he should; have recorded his reasons- in-writing for taking such action; and.
3. that the Magistrate has acted illegally in passing a composite order Under Sec.112 and Under Sec.117 (3): of the Code as such an order is illegal.
4. No one appeared either in support of the reference or against it. On a consideration of the-reasons given by the learned Judge and the law on the subject, however, I find that the reference made by the learned Judge is well-founded and must be accepted.
5. The relevant Sections of the Code, which are necessary to be read for answering the reference are Sec.107 (j), Sec.113, Sec.117 (3), and, Proviso (a) to Sub-section (3) of Sec.117 of1. the Code. As we are here concerned only with Sec.107, I will deal: with it alone, omitting Section 108, 109 or no mentioned in Sec.112 of the Code.
6. Sub-section (t), Sec.107, of the Code, as far as material, provides. ... the Magistrate if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding may, in manner hereinafter provided, Require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix.
7. Proviso (a) to Sub-section (3) of Sec.117, which alone is relevant here, says :
(a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken Under Sec.108, Sec.109, or Section no, shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour.
8. It is manifest, therefore, from the plain language of Sub-section (i) of Sec.107, that the Magistrate, if he decides to proceed Under Sec.107, can require the person concerned to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for "keeping the peace"; and, not for "maintaining good behaviour". Proviso (a) to Sub-section (3) of Sec.117, further, makes the position absolutely clear by providing that no person, against whom proceedings are not being taken Under Sec.108, Sec.109 or Section no, shall be directed to execute a bond for "maintaining good behaviour". It is plain, therefore, that in a proceeding taken Under Sec.107, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to ask the person proceeded against to execute a bond for "maintaining good behaviour". He can require him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for "keeping the -peace". The Magistrate, therefore, in the instant case, acted illegally, in contravention of Sec.107 (1) and Proviso (a) to Sec.117 (3), in asking the opposite part} before him, who were the petitioners in the Court below, to execute a bond I for "maintaining good behaviour".
9. Sub-section (1) of Sec.107 provides that if the Magistrate wants to proceed thereunder he may proceed "in manner hereinafter provided"
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.