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

1952 Supreme(Cal) 175

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
GUHA MUKHERJEE, LAHIRI
DULAL CHANDRA MONDAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CALCUTTA - Respondent
Criminal Revn 739  Of  1952
Decided On : AUGUST 20, 1952

Advocates Appeared:
Amaresh Chandra Roy, NALIN CHANDRA BANERJI

The Magistrate is competent to pass an order under Section 117(3), CrPC, even before commencing the inquiry under Section 117(1).

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 117(1) AND 117(3) - INTERPRETATION - ORDER UNDER SECTION 117(3) BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 117(1) - LEGALITY - LOCAL SURETIES - INSISTENCE ON - JUSTIFICATION - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 392, PENAL CODE - MISTAKE IN POLICE REPORT - MODIFICATION OF ORDER.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Dulal Chandra Mandal, was served with a notice under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for good behavior. On the same day, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 117(3), CrPC, directing the petitioner's detention until the conclusion of the inquiry or until a bond was executed, as immediate measures were necessary to prevent a breach of peace and commission of offenses. The petitioner challenged the legality of this order, arguing that the Magistrate could not pass an order under Section 117(3) before commencing the inquiry under Section 117(1).

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Magistrate was competent to pass an order under Section 117(3), CrPC, even before commencing the inquiry under Section 117(1). The court interpreted Section 117(1) and (3) together and found that the inquiry under Section 117(1) does not commence only after the Magistrate starts taking down evidence. Consideration of police papers or hearing the parties' advocates can also be treated as a preliminary stage in the inquiry under Section 117(3).

Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate could pass an order under Section 117(3), CrPC, before commencing the inquiry under Section 117(1). 2. Whether the Magistrate was justified in insisting on local sureties.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 117(1) and (3), CrPC, together and found that the inquiry under Section 117(1) does not commence only after the Magistrate starts taking down evidence. Consideration of police papers or hearing the parties' advocates can also be treated as a preliminary stage in the inquiry under Section 117(3). Therefore, the Magistrate was competent to pass an order under Section 117(3) before commencing the inquiry under Section 117(1). 2. The court found that the Magistrate was justified in insisting on local sureties, as sureties living at a considerable distance from the petitioner's residence would not be able to exercise proper control over him.

Final Decision: The court modified the Magistrate's order, reducing the bond amount to Rs. 200/- with two local sureties of like amount each. The court also directed that suitable opportunities be given to the petitioner to furnish the bond.

GUHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by one Dulal Chandra Mandal for revision of certain orders passed against him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Barasat. It appears that on receipt of a police report the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate drew up proceedings against the present petitioner under Section 110, Criminal P. C. , on 26-6-1952, asking him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 500/- with two local sureties for good behaviour for a period of three years. The petitioner was present in Court and on the same day the proceedings drawn up against him under Section 112, Criminal P. C. , were explained to him under Section 113, Criminal P. C. On the very same day, the learned Magistrate passed against the petitioner an order under Section 117 (3), Criminal P. C. directing that he be detained in custody until the conclusion of the enquiry or until a bond of Rs. 500/- with two local sureties was executed, as in the opinion of the learned Magistrate immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of breach of the peace and commission of offences and for public safety. This order under Section 117 (3), Cr. P. C. , was it appears, passed on the basis of a police report submitted against the petitioner requesting that he might be dealt with under that section.

( 2 ) THE main point that has been canvassed before us by Mr. Banerjee on behalf of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 117 (1), Criminal P. C. , the learned Magistrate was not competent to pass an order against the present petitioner under Sub-section (3) of the same section before he had commenced the inquiry against the petitioner under Sub-section (1) by recording at least some evidence. Mr. Banerjee contends that on the plain reading of Sub-section (1), Section 117, Criminal P. C. the enquiry contemplated under that sub-section commences only after some evidence has been recorded. Admittedly, in the present case no such evidence has been recorded yet and the learned Magistrate passed the order under Sub-section (3) on the basis of the police report requesting action against the petitioner under Sub-section (3 ). Sub-section (1) says that when an order under Section 112 has been read or explained under Section 113 to a person present in Court --these provisions of the law were admittedly complied with in the present case -- the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Then Sub-section (3) says that pending the completion of the enquiry under Sub-section (1) the Magistrate may, in certain circumstances, direct the person in respect of whom the order under Section 112 has been made to execute a bond. Reading the two sub-sections namely, Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (3) together it seems to us that it is open to the Magistrate in a suitable case to take action under Sub-section (3) against a particular person even before any evidence has been recorded. The enquiry does not commence only after the Magistrate has started taking down evidence. Consideration of the police papers or hearing learned Advocates of the parties regarding the case may also be treated to be a stage -- a preliminary stage, -- in the enquiry contemplated under Sub-section (3) even before any evidence has been recorded or any witness examined. All that Sub-section (3) says is that pending the completion of the enquiry under Sub-section (1) the Magistrate may direct the person in respect of whom the order under Section 112 has been made, to execute a bond. Looking at the plain words of the Statute, it seems to us that the requirements of this provision of law have been satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the proceedings drawn up under Section 112 were explained to the present petitioner under Section 113, Criminal P. C. , and the learned Magistrate had also addressed himself to the facts mentioned in the police repor



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