Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.C. Patnaik, J.
PURNANANDA BEHERA AND ANOTHER - APPELLANT
Versus
SUNAKAR SINGH AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT
Criminal Revision No. 402 of 1980
Decided On : 28-10-1981
Baradakanta Mohanty, for S.C. Mishra, S.C. Mohanty, J.K. Bastia, L.K. Parida and B.H. Mohanty, for the Appellant; B.K. Samal, for the Respondent
A defect in the order or notice issued under Section 107 of the CrPC does not necessarily vitiate the proceeding, unless it causes prejudice to the person proceeded against.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 107 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - VAGUENESS OF ORDER AND NOTICE - NO PREJUDICE CAUSED - PROCEEDING QUASHED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners challenged a proceeding initiated against them under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), alleging that the order and notices issued were vague and did not disclose the substance of the information received by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 107 of the CrPC was vague and did not set forth the substance of the information received, as required by law. The notices issued to the Petitioners were also verbatim copies of the order, which did not provide them with sufficient information about the charges against them.
Issues: 1. Whether the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 107 of the CrPC was valid and in accordance with the law. 2. Whether the notices issued to the Petitioners were sufficient and provided them with adequate information about the charges against them. 3. Whether the Petitioners were prejudiced by the vagueness of the order and notices.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order passed by the Magistrate was defective due to its vagueness and failure to set forth the substance of the information received. 2. The Court also held that the notices issued to the Petitioners were insufficient and did not provide them with adequate information about the charges against them. 3. However, the Court found that the Petitioners had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the defects in the order and notices, as they had not yet been asked to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Petitioners' revision petition and quashed the proceeding initiated against them under Section 107 of the CrPC. The Court also observed that it was open to the Magistrate to initiate a fresh proceeding if he found apprehension of breach of peace.
JUDGMENT :
R.C. Patnaik, J. - This is an application by the Petitioners for quashing a proceeding initiated u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Mr. Barada Kanta Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate while acting u/s 107, should make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed the term for which it is to be enforced and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required. The procedure begins with Section 111A person proceeded against has to show-cause. So he must know the grounds for apprehension of the breach of the peace or disturbance of public tranquility at his hand. He should be supplied with the substance of the overt acts for the purpose of his information so as to enable him to know the charges he has to meet. He further submitted that the delinquent might not be supplied with the information verbatim, but a vague information or information of generalized nature was not sufficient. Such information which kept the delinquent in dark did not satisfy the requirements of law. According to him, the order of the Magistrate suffered from the vice of vagueness and the initiation of the proceeding was without jurisdiction and void. He drew my attention to the order dated 8-5-1980 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 273 of 1980, which is extracted as follows:
Whereas it has been made to appear to me from the report of the O.I.C., Mahanga P.S. there exist land dispute between the parties. The members of the 2nd party have been combined together and with a view to put the Ist party into trouble and loss are committing various overt acts which leads to serious breach of the peace.
Since there is apprehension of the breach of the peace, I do hereby order u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure directing the members of the 2nd party to appear in my Court on 4-6-1980 and show cause as to why each of them should not to ordered to execute, a bond for Rs. 500/- with one local surety each for the like amount to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of 6 months.
Mr. Mohanty contended that the contents of the order are too vague and tile notices, issued to the Petitioners, reproduced verbatim the order passed. The requirement's of Section 111 were not complied with, i.e. the notices issued to the Petitioners did not disclose t he substance of the information received by the Magistrate on the basis of which he was of the opinion that there was apprehension of breach of peace. He contended that the order being the foundation of the jurisdiction and the most essential facts having not been incorporated either in the order, nor information of the same having been conveyed to the Petitioner by the notices, the defect went to the root of the validity of the proceeding and the proceeding stood vitiated. He drew my attention to the case of Krupasindhu Panigrahi Vs. Rex Sanatan Baliarsing and Others Vs. State and Another The State v. Somonath Mohapatra 19 (1955) C.L.T. 58, Lokanath Das and Ors. v. The State 24 (1958) C.L.T. 123, Dibakar Pradhan and Anr. v. State 32 (1966) C.L.T. 515, decided by this Court and submitted that the Magistrate in the order having not set forth the substance of the information received except in a vague and genera manner and the notices which were issued being verbatim copies of the order, the proceeding should be quashed.
3. There is much substance in the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. His submissions also get support from a decision in the case of Madhu Limaye and Anr. v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Monghyr and Ors. AIR 1971 S.C. 2485. Therein there Lordships said:
...Although the section speaks of the 'substance of the information', it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information bodily but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdic
