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

1993 Supreme(All) 566

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A.S.Tripathi
KAILASH NATH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 11 November 1993
Criminal Revision No. 1846 of 1993

The main legal point established is that under Section 111, Cr. P. C., the Magistrate is duty-bound to proceed with the enquiry upon information received and take appropriate action when the person concerned appears before the court.

Headnote:

Section 111, Cr. P. C. - Duty of Magistrate to Proceed with Enquiry upon Information Received - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 111, Cr. P. C. calling upon the revisionists to show-cause or furnish a bond, based on information received from the S. H. O. Kydganj, Allahabad.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the learned Magistrate did not proceed with the enquiry when the revisionists appeared before the court, and the impugned order exhausted on the same day without any further action.

Issues: The issue was whether the learned Magistrate properly proceeded with the enquiry under Section 111, Cr. P. C. when the revisionists appeared before the court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provision of Section 111, Cr. P. C. requires the Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry upon information received, and if the person concerned appears before the court, the Magistrate must either call upon them to show-cause or proceed with the enquiry.

Final Decision: The revision was disposed of, and the learned Magistrate was advised to proceed according to law by passing a fresh order if necessary.

A. S TRIPATHL, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and learned A. G. A. for State. Learned Magistrate has passed an order under Section 111, Cr. P. C. calling upon the revisionists to show-cause on the date fixed on 8- H-1993 or to furnish the bond of Rs. 25,000 and sureties of the same amount.

2. A perusal of the Section 111, Cr. P. C. shows that it is the duty of the Magistrate to proceed under the provisions of Sections 107, 108, 109 and 110, Cr. P. C. and enquire upon the information received, the Magistrate has to set forth the substance of the information and call upon the person concerned to show-cause as to why the amount of the bond to be executed the terms for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties, is specified. In this particular case the learned Magistrate has psssed this order on an information received from the S. H. O. Kydganj, Allahabad and calling upon the revisionists to show-cause as to why they could not be held to furnish the bonds required fixing 8- 11-1993.

3. It has been averred in the affidavit that on the date fixed no action was taken by the Magistrate against the revisionists, who appear before the Court. When the revisionist appear before the Court for show-cause, the Magistrate did not proceed with the enquiry and even if the date is extended without hearing of the revisionist, the same is uncalled for as the provision of Section 111, Cr. P. C. are complete in itself. The provision of Sees. 113, 116 and 117 came into play when the person concerned are not present in the court or to fail to show-cause, the Magistrate call for furnishing the bonds under the provision under Section 116 (3), Cr. P. C. That stage has not come in this case. The date was fixed on 8- 11-1993 for appearance of the revisionists is the Court When the date was fixed on 8-11-1993 either to show-cause or to furnish tbe bonds and the revisionist appear, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate either to call upon to show-cause or to proceed with the enquiry. The revisionists when appeared the learned Magistrate did not do anything on that date. Accordingly the impugned order exhausted in same day. When nothing is done on the date fixed on the appearance of the revisionist and the learned Magistrate did not proceed with the enquiry further the said order exhausted. As such if the learned Magistrate wants to proceed in future fresh order is required in the circumstances.

5. With these observations the revision is disposed of finally. The learned Magistrate if deems necessary may proceed according to law by passing a fresh order.

Revision disposed of.


.

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