Decided on April 12,1972



- (1.) This petition is by the respondents in M.C.No. 5 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nandyal, to set aside the order passed by him under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring each of them to execute a personal bond for Rs. 500 with two sureties for a like sum, to keep the peace for a period of one year under the provisions of section 107, Criminal Procedure Code,
(2.) This above order was passed on information furnished to the Magistrate by the Inspector of Police, Nandyal, to the effect that there were long standing factions in Alamur village within Panyam Police station limits and that on that account there are strained feelings between two groups one led by Mallu Thimma Reddy and the other led by M. Rama Subba Reddy, that this has taken a serious turn after the Gram Panchayat Elections held in June, 1970 resulting in emergence of two groups and each group resorting to acts of violence involving breach of the peace and tranquillity and on account of these embittered feelings, several overt acts had been committed jointly and severally and there is apprehension of further breach of the peace. He has given as many as 30 instances of acts involving the alleged breach of the peace. It is against this order that the respondents have filed this petition.
(3.) It is now contended relying upon the decisions in chinnayya Ghettiar v. State of Mysore , (1970) Crl. L.J. 111. and T. Ramanaiah v. State , (1967) 2 An.W.R, 327, that, since the Magistrate has not stated that there was sufficient ground for directing the respondents to show cause why they should not execute a bond for keeping peace, the entire order is vitiated and must be set aside. In section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the notice was issued, the words used are, when a Magistrate, acting under section 107 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order......' The words that 'he should be satisfied on the material placed before him that there are sufficient grounds', are not used. It is in sections 107 and 108 the words that the Magistrate, "if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding may (in manner hereinafter provided) require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond" are used. These words in section 107 have been introduced by way of an amendment in 1954. It will be seen that sections 109 and no of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not contain these words. However, in section 118 where under final orders are passed, the words used are: "If, upon such enquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour as the casf may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly". Therefore, the satisfaction required unde section 107 or even under section 112 wherein the words, "deems it necessary are used, cannot equated to that required under section 118, for, in order to pass a preliminary order the satisfaction required under section 112 is satisfaction even on the material placed before the Magistrate and not after proof in an inquiry. At this stage what is required is to see whether a prima facie case for the issue of a preliminary order has been made out, as in some cases of information received, even such a prima facie case may not have been made out. In the present case, the Magistrate has chosen to say that on credible information placed before him that there is a long standing faction in Alamur village, that there are strained feelings betweer respondents-petitioners i.e., the group led by Mallu Thimma Reddy and M. Rama Subba Reddy's group that this has resulted in several acts of violence resulting in breach of the peace and that, therefore, each respondent should execute bonds. When the Magistrate says that a credible information is placed before him, it would mean that there was subjective satisfaction for the issuing of a preliminary order. It is needless to say that he need not use the very same words that are contained in section 107. What he has stated would certainly mean that he is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding and that he deems it necessary that further action should be taken. This objection is, therefore, overruled.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.