ORDER

C.B. Capoor, J. - This is a petition u/s 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of proceedings u/s 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure pending against the Applicants. The main ground on which the petition is based is that by a notice issued u/s 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Applicants were required to show cause as to why they be not required to execute a bond to keep peace for a period of one year and as the said period of one year has expired the proceeding cannot continue and in support of that contention reliance has been placed upon a ruling of this Court reported as Babu Ram and Anr. v. Rex AIR 1949 All 21: 1948 AWR 214 (H.C.). Before proceeding to discuss the aforesaid decision I propose to consider the question as if it were one of first impression. The Applicants have not been required to furnish interim security and as such Section 117 of the Code is not material. The relevant sections of the Code are 107, 112, 118 and 120.

Sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia provides that whenever a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the 1st Class is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace...the Magistrate, if in his opinion there is a sufficient ground for proceeding may...require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without surity, for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit.

It is significant that the section does not require that the period for which the person proceeded against may be required to execute a bond should commence from the date on which notice to show cause is either given or served. The order requiring a bond to be executed is to be made after an opportunity has been afforded to the person proceeded against to show cause and the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The final order is made u/s 118 of the Code and if the person proceeded against is required to execute a bond the period for which the bond is to be operative must in the very nature of things commence from the date of the execution of the bond. There is nothing in Sections 107, 112 and 118 of the Code to indicate that the period for which the person proceeded against may be required to execute a bond is to commence from the date when the notice u/s 112 of the Code is either given or served. On the other hand Section 120 of the Code clearly provides that the period for which the bond is required to be executed shall commence from the date of such order unless the Magistrate for sufficient reason fixes a later date or the person proceeded against is sentenced or is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment in which case the period shall commence on the expiration of such sentence.

Adverting to the Allahabad case relied upon on behalf of the Applicant one finds that neither any section of the Code nor any Judicial authority on the point under consideration was specifically referred to. The view expressed in the aforesaid case was expressly dissented from by the Patna High Court in the case of Jangi Gope and Ors. v. The State through Ram Shakal Singh (infra). During the course of the judgment the learned Judge made the following observations:

With great respect, I differ from the view taken by the learned Judge. If that were the correct position in law, then in all cases where because of long pendency of any appeal or revision the period initially fixed by the Magistrate for keeping the peace had expired, the proceeding taken u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure will automatically fail. In most cases it will be difficult to dispose of an appeal from the order u/s 118 Code of Criminal Procedure and revision, if any, from the appellate order, during the period fixed by the Magistrate for keeping the peace. If that were so, it will be easy for the persons bent upon disturbing the peace to destroy the eff