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

2008 Supreme(Ker) 496

Judgename : M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Shameer - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Rep.By Public - Respondents
Case No : Crl.Rev.Pet.No.2191 of 2008()
Decided On : 09/22/2008

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:B.H. Mansoor, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an inquiry under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be completed within six months from the date the accused appears before the court, unless special reasons are recorded by the Magistrate to extend the period.

Headnote:

Inquiry - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 107, Section 111, Section 112, Section 114, Section 116 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 107, Section 111, Section 112, Section 114, and Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the requirement for the completion of the inquiry within six months unless special reasons are recorded by the Magistrate to extend the period. The court highlighted that the inquiry commences when the accused appears before the court and the six-month period is to be computed from that date. The court also emphasized that if the inquiry is not completed within six months, it shall stand terminated unless special reasons are recorded by the Magistrate.

Fact of the Case:

The Executive Magistrate commenced an inquiry under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on a report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioners challenged the final order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate directing them to execute a bond with two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for a term of one year.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the inquiry stood terminated on the expiry of six months from the date the accused appeared before the Magistrate, as no special reasons were recorded by the Magistrate to extend the period of inquiry. The impugned order was set aside, and it was declared that the inquiry stood terminated as provided under sub section 6 of section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues: The key issue was whether an inquiry commenced under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be continued beyond the period of six months in the absence of a special reason to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry under section 116 commences as soon as the accused appears before the court, and the period of six months is to be computed from that date. It emphasized that the inquiry shall stand terminated on the expiry of six months unless special reasons are recorded by the Magistrate to extend the period.

Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and it was declared that the inquiry stood terminated on the expiry of six months from the date the accused appeared before the Magistrate. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly.

Judgment :

The short point for consideration is whether an inquiry commenced under section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the absence of a special reason to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate could be continued beyond the period of six months as provided under sub section 6 of Section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The records of Executive (Sub Divisional) Magistrate, Fort Kochi in M.C.27 of 2006 show that based on the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, North Parur police station dated 2.2006, Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 4.2006 exercising the powers provided under section 107 and 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure, directing petitioners and others to appear before him Court on 25.2006, to show cause why they should not be required to enter into a bond for Rs.10,000/- each and also to furnish security by a bond with two sureties for the like sum to keep peace for a term of one year. Petitioners appeared before Sub Divisional Magistrate on 17.2006. As per order dated 28.2.2007, Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a final order as provided under section 116 directing petitioners to execute a bond with two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for a term of one year, within two weeks from that day. This petition is filed under section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned public prosecutor were heard.

4. Learned counsel relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Muhammedkutty @ Thomas v. State of Kerala (2007 (2) KLD 99) argued that as provided under sub section 6 of section 116, on the day of expiry of six months from the date on which the accused appeared before Sub Divisional Magistrate, the proceedings stood terminated as no special reasons were recorded by the Magistrate and therefore the impugned order is illegal and is to be set aside.

5. Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enables a Magistrate if he is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the information received, that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year. Section 111 enables a Magistrate to issue an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed and the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. Under section 112, if the person in respect of whom such an order is made is present in Court, it shall be read over to him, and if he so desires, substance thereof shall be explained to him. If such person is not present in Court, Magistrate shall issue a summons as provided under the Section requiring him to appear. Section 114 provides that every summons or warrant so issued shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under section 111. Section 116 provides the mode of inquiry to be conducted by the Magistrate. Under sub section (1), when an order under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112, to a person present in Court, or when he appears or is produced in answer to the summons or warrant issued as provided under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which the action has been taken, and shall take such further evidence as may appear. Sub section (2) to section 116 provides that recording of evidence is to be done as in a summons case. Sub section (6) mandates that the inquiry under the section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under the Chapter shall stand terminated on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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