NIRANJAN MAHAKUL AND ANR. Vs. KARTIKA MOHAPATRA AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Niranjan Mahakul And Anr.
Kartika Mohapatra And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
N.K. Das, J. -
(1.) THE Petitioners are members of the first party in a proceeding under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure. They have prayed for quashing the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Balasore setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the proceeding stands terminated on the ground that six months expired from the date of commencement of the proceeding.
(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the proceeding under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure was started on 13 -8 -1975. On 2 -4 -1976, a petition was filed by the Court Sub -Inspector for direction to execute interim bond by the second party. Inquiry on the question of execution of interim bond was started on 2 -6 -1976 and it was completed on 19 -10 -1976. In view of the provisions under Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order is under Sub -section (1) of that section has been made to execute a bond for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior until the conclusion of the inquiry. This order he is entitled to pass at a stage after commencement or before completion of the inquiry under Sub -section (1). This would clearly show that when a Magistrate has started an inquiry under Sub -section (1) of Section 116, he may direct execution of an interim bond for the reasons mentioned in Sub -section (3) or that section. Sub -section (6) of Section 116, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. It is clear ' from the aforesaid provisions that an inquiry is to be completed within six months from the date of its commencement. A Division Bench of this Court in which I was a party, decided in the case of Uchaba Jena and Ors. v. Kunjabehari Rautray and Anr. : 44 (1977) C.L.T. 381, that the inquiry referred to in Sub -section (6) is with reference to the stage when the Magistrate, after both parties appear before him, proceeds to inquire with reference to the evidence as to whether the delinquencies alleged are established. this Court also took note of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye and Anr. v. Ved Murti and Ors., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2481 as well as the case of Udayanath Pradhan and Ors. v. State and Anr. : 40 (1974) C.L.T. 148. The learned Sessions Judge was wrong in calculating the period of six months from the date of its commencement. The counsel for the second party before the learned Sessions Judge also wrongly submitted that it should be six months from the commencement of the proceeding. According to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court, it is well settled that the period of six months is to be computed from the date of commencement of inquiry. Undisputedly, inquiry under Sub -section (1) of Section 116, Code of Criminal Procedure has not yet been started. Mr. Kar, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, states that the inquiry for execution of interim bond would be deemed to be an inquiry under Sub -section (1) of Section 116 of the Code. From the order -sheet of the learned Magistrate, it appears that the inquiry was only on the petition for execution of interim bond. It would, therefore, follow that the learned Sessions Judge committed error of law in holding that the proceeding terminated after six months from the date of commencement of the proceeding and, as such, the order is not sustainable.
(3.) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the proceeding as quickly as possible. The records be sent back to the trial Court immediately.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.