Back
High Court of Allahabad
S.S. Ahmad, G.B. Singh, JJ.
Prakash Awasthi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26 of 1980
Decided On : Jan 07, 1986
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 107, 111, 112, 116, 117 - PUBLIC ORDER - PREVENTIVE DETENTION - PROCEDURE - REQUIREMENTS - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - DETENTION OF PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 107/116(3) CR.P.C. HELD ILLEGAL - ORDERS QUASHED - PETITIONER DIRECTED TO BE RELEASED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a lawyer, was arrested along with others for making inflammatory speeches and causing a tense situation at the Collectorate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. requiring the petitioner to show cause why he should not be required to furnish bonds for keeping peace for one year. The order was passed at Police Lines at 1.45 A.M. on 4th January, 1986, when the petitioner was already arrested under Section 151 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate then proceeded to record the statement of the Inspector Incharge and passed an order under Section 116(3) Cr.P.C. for an interim bond.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the entire proceedings were illegal and the detention of the petitioner for his failure to supply interim bonds, which were illegally demanded from him, was bad. The Court observed that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in conducting the case in the dead of night at Police Lines, which was not the Court building, did not inspire confidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in conducting the proceedings under Section 107/116(3) Cr.P.C. was legal. 2. Whether the detention of the petitioner for his failure to supply interim bonds was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in conducting the proceedings under Section 107/116(3) Cr.P.C. was illegal. The Court observed that the Magistrate had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of Sections 111, 112, 113, and 114 of the Code, which require that the person concerned be given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be required to furnish bonds for keeping peace, and that the proceedings be held in an open court. 2. The Court held that the detention of the petitioner for his failure to supply interim bonds was not justified. The Court observed that the Magistrate had already passed an order under Section 116(3) Cr.P.C. for an interim bond, even though the petitioner was already in custody. The Court held that there was no occasion for the Magistrate to demand an interim bond from the petitioner, who was already in detention.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the orders passed by the Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 107/116(3) Cr.P.C., and directed that the petitioner be released forthwith unless his detention was required in connection with some other case.
S.S. Ahmad, J.
1. THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of habeas corpus by which the petitioner has challenged his detention in the District Jail, Lucknow.
2. NOTICE of this petition was issued to the opposite parties vide order dated 6th January, 198b to the following effect :-
"Let a copy of this petition be supplied to the Govt. Advocate today who represents opposite parties nos.1 to 11. Put up this petition for orders on 7-1-86. Opposite parties are directed to produce the petitioner in Court on 7-1-86. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Magistrate, Lucknow, Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow, Superintendant of Police, Lucknow, City Magistrate, Lucknow and the Superintendent District Jail, Lucknow."
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow has appeared in person before us and has produced the original record from which the following tacts emerged :- (a) On 3rd January, 1986 a report was submitted by Sri Bhup Singh, Inspector Incharge Police Station Qaiserbagh at 4.30 P.M.. that the petitioner along with 34 others including Ram Chandra Misra, Sunil Kumar Singh, Ramendra Verma, Kuldip Singh, Ahsan Abbas and Vishambhar Singh had been making inflammatory speeches within the precincts of the Collectorate, Lucknow. Abuses were hurled at the employees of the Collectorate and the lawyers present there were exhorted by the petitioner and his associates to assault the employees and chase them away. The employees had collected in another portion of the Collectorate lawn. They were obecting to the use of abusive language by the lawyers, the destruction of the Government property and the " marpit " resorted to by the lawyers. The officers who were also present at the spot tried to pacify the employees who concluded their meeting but the petitioner and his associates did not pay any heed and continued to deliver inflammatory speeches over the microphone as a result of which a tension was generated and the situation became explosive. The City Magistrate declared the assembly of the lawyers illegal and asked them to leave the place. They refused and then they were arrested under Section 151 Cr. P.C.. (b) That report was placed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lucknow on 4th January, 1986 and he passed the following order :- I am satisfied from the report that there is apprehension of breach of peace. Let a case be registered under Section 107 Cr. P.C. against opposite parties ana proceedings initiated against them. " (c) Thereafter an order against the above persons was passed by the Magistrate under Sections 107/111 Cr. P.C., It will be useful to reproduce this order in its entirety :- Thana Adhyaksh Kasierbagh ki chalani report dinank 3-1-86 dwara mujhe pratit karaya gaya hai ki uprokt vipashigan dinank 3-1-86 ko samai lagbhag 4.30 baje sain collectory kutchery ke prangan me loud speaker lagakar pradarshan kar rahe the tatha collectorate ke karmachariyon ke virudh apshabdon ka pravog kar rahe the aur Shri Prakash Avasthi va unke sathi vakla sahban collectorate ke karmachariyon ko mar kar bhaga dene hetu lalkar rahe the jisese stithi atyant tanaopurna ho gai aur vipakashigan ki ore se puri shanti bhang hone ke sambhawana utpan ho gai. Mai uprokt police report se santusth hun ke uprokt vipakshigan ke ore se shanti bhang hone ki sambhawana hai. Atha mai A. K. Singh Pargana Magistrate Lucknow etat dwara ukta vipakshigan ko nirdesh deta hun ke we sandarshit karen ke kuy na ek varsh tak janparishanthi banye rakhney hetu unsey 2000/- ka vayaktigat bandhnama tatha etmhi dhanrashi ke do-do prathibhu liye jayen. Aaj dinank 4-1-1986 ko mere dwara hastakchar evum navalaya ki mudra se prasarit keya gaya. Hastakchar 4-1-1986 Time 1.45 A.M. [ A. K. Singh ] Pargana Magistrate, Lucknow Adesh vipakshigan ko parhkar sunaya tatha samjhaya gaya. Hastakchar 4-1-1986 Time 1.45 A.M. [A. K. Singh] Pargana Magistrate, Lucknow. (d) It is said that this order was read out to the above persons m
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
