The discretion of the Magistrate to discharge respondents under S.107 if convinced that there was no likelihood of a breach of peace, and the wide powers of the High Court in revision under S. 439 Criminal Procedure Code.

1. This revision petition is directed against an order of the Division First Class Magistrate, Alwaye by which the learned Magistrate discharged counter petitioners 3 to 6 in M.C. 3 of 1951 on the file of his court. In that case six persons were being proceeded against under S. 107 Criminal Procedure Code (Travancore S.103) to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace. When counter-petitioners 3 to 6 appeared in court pursuant to the notice issued to them, they filed an application requesting the court to drop the proceeding as against them at the same time undertaking that they will not commit any breach of the peace. The prosecution represented by the Prosecuting Inspector of Police supported the motion made by the said counter-petitioners and filed a report to the effect that there was no likelihood then of any breach of peace being caused by them. The present petitioner who moved the police to take action under S.107 against the counter-petitioners, sought to intervene at that stage to oppose the motion. The court held that he had no locus standi to intervene and passed orders under S.119 Criminal Procedure Code (Travancore S.115) discharging counter-petitioners 3 to 6 on the ground that the court was satisfied that there was no necessity to continue the proceeding as against them. The revision petition is against that order. Two points arise for decision here. One is whether the petitioner is competent to file this revision. The other is whether the Magistrate's order is bad in law.

2. The Petitioner has no locus standi to maintain this revision petition. He was not a party to the proceeding before the lower court. That proceeding was between the State on the one hand and the counter-petitioners thereto on the other. The Magistrate's order refusing to listen to the objection was therefore right and the petitioner cannot have in this court any higher right than what he had before the primary court.

3. This does not, however, mean the court should reject the revision on that ground. S. 439 Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the powers of this court in revision is couched in very wide terms. It states that in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by Ss. 423, 426, 427 and 428 or on a Court by S. 338 and may enhance the sentence; The circumstances under which the Magistrate happened to discharge counter-petitioners 3 to 6 have now come to the knowledge of this court and it is up to this court to examine the legality of that order. This would appear to me to be the proper approach to the preliminary objection raised by the counter petitioners.

4. As for the merits of the order it cannot be forgotten that proceedings under S.107 of the Criminal procedure Code are only intended for the security of the public peace and the person most responsible for maintaining peace in a particular locality is the Magistrate of the District. When on cogent grounds he is satisfied that there is no likelihood of a breach of peace arising on account of all or any of the persons against whom a preliminary order under S.107 is drawn up there is nothing in the Code which prevents him from dropping that enquiry in whole or in part. S.117(2) enacts that in a proceeding under S. 107 the enquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable in the manner prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases. Chapter XX, Criminal Procedure Code deals with the trial of summons cases by Magistrates and the scheme or the intendment of the Chapter does not forbid a premature termination of a case. The decision in A.I.R. 1940 Rangoon 189 brought to my notice during the course of the argument contains the following observations relevant to the point:

"the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under th