The main legal point established is that Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code is intended to protect the public against habitual criminals, and its provisions should not be misused to target individuals who do not fall within the intended scope of the section.

Newsam, J.

1. This is a petition asking the Court to quash security proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mayavaram against the two petitioners who are mirasidars and residents of Manigramam.

2. By an order dated 21st November, 1936, the petitioners were called upon to show cause why they should not furnish security for their good behaviour for two years. The order stated that it was based on information that they habitually committed the offences of extortion, mischief, theft and assault and were so dangerous and desperate as to render their being at large, without security, hazardous to the community. It purported in fact to be made under els. (a), (d), (e) and (f) of Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of the information given to the Magistrate was set out in an appendix consisting of 21 heads of charge.

3. One hundred and seventeen witnesses were cited to prove the information, twenty-four of these were examined between 9th December, 1936 and 23rd February, 1937 (that is, in 2 months) and they were examined by the Magistrate, who is a touring officer, at several sittings in nine different camps in his division. As the end was still not in sight, the petitioners then presented this petitition and proceedings were stayed.

4. Various grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the entire proceedings; one grievance is that in 1936, the first counter-petitioner was shot at and wounded by some members of the opposite faction who were tried and convicted for the offence. Some persons who gave evidence on behalf of the accused in that case are now witnesses for the prosecution in this case.

5. Another ground taken is that the time and place at which the incidents mentioned in the heads of charge took place are not given. Some of the incidents are stale, some were the subject-matter of criminal complaints which were dismissed.

6. In the third place it is urged that there is no justification at all for a joint inquiry. It is not even pretended that the two counter-petitioners (petitioners herein) have been habitually associated together or in all the matters now under enquiry; The first incident for example (looting of houses in 1936) relates to the second counter-petitioner only. His men were tried for this alleged offence and were acquitted. The second incident (extortion of Rs. 2-4-0) relates to the first counter petitioner only, according to the evidence of P.Ws. 8 and 9. But there is no indication in the order that both incidents do not relate to both petitioners and no details of time and place were given for either.

7. I propose to take this latter point first. Section 117(5) of Criminal Procedure Code states that where two or more persons have been associated together in the matter under inquiry, they may be dealt with in the same or separate inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just. It has not been denied before me that the two counter-petitioners were not associated together in all the matters under inquiry, and there fore it is not only not just, but it is not legal to deal with there both in the same inquiry. That such a joint inquiry prejudices the counter-petitioners in cases of this nature has been repeatedly laid down. Walsh, J., in a case reported in Emperor v. Angnu Singh I.L.R. (1922) 45 All 109 has said:

Common sense and common justice dictates that proceedings against a man for badmashi should be confined to himself alone, unless the case is that he has a confederate or a partner to whom all the evidence is equally applicable.

8. And Madhavan Nair, J. in a case reported in Kutti Goundan, In re AIR1925Mad189 approved of these remarks and further approved of a comment in Hari Telang v. Queen-Empress I.L.R.(1900) 27 Cal. 781 that a joint inquiry is out of the question when one charge at least is that two persons are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community. There certainly can be no such i