Jamuar, J. -
(1.) This is an application by four petitioners. By a judgment and order, dated the 30th May, 1950, the Subdivisional Magistrate of Madhipura directed them, under Sections 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to execute a bond of Rs. 4,000/- each with four sureties of Rs. 1,000/- each to be of good behaviour for a period of three years in a proceeding under Section 110, Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), of the Code drawn up against them. On a reference made to the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur for the confirmation of that order, the matter was heard by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madhipura, who confirmed the order as against the petitioner Raghunath Singh in respect of Clauses (a), (d) and (f) only but maintained the amount of the bond to be executed by him with the four sureties as directed by the Subdivisional Magistrate; and, with regard to the rest of the petitioners, he confirmed the order in respect of Clauses (a) and (d) only, and reduced the amount of bond to be executed by them to Rs. 1,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 500/- each.
(2.) The facts relevant to the argument advanced in support of this application are these : On the 9th December, 1949, the Sub-Inspector of Murliganj Police Station submitted four separate reports for taking action under Sections HO, Criminal Procedure Code, against the four petitioners. One report was against the peti-.tioner Raghunath Singh of village Kumarkhat; another was against the petitioner Sheikh Yusuf of village Mangalwara; the third was against the petitioner Gonar Mian also of village Mangalwara; and the fourth was against the petitioner Sheikh Akloo of village Sarhad. As a result, on the 24th January, 1950, the Subdivisional Magistrate ordered for the drawing up of proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and directed the petitioners to appear and show cause why they will not be ordered to execute bonds of Rs. 4,000/- each with four sureties of Rs. 1,000/- each to be of good behaviour for a period of three years. It appears that, consequent upon this order, three notices were sent under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code; one to Raghunath Singh of village Kumarkhat, another to Gonar Mian and Sheikh Yusuf together as both are of village Mangalwara, and the third to Sheikh Akloo of village Sarhad. The proceedings appear to have been kept separately against the three sets of petitioners as shown above, and, for one reason or another, the proceedings could not commence till the 7th March, 1950. On the date, the Court. Sub-Inspector, on behalf of the prosecution, filed the following petition before the Subdivisional Magistrate :
"That the 4 accused persons, namely, Raghunath Singh. Akloo Mian, Gonar Mian and Yusuf Mian are members of the same gang, and are associates of each other. "It is, therefore, prayed that they may kindly be placed on joint trial"; and the learned Subdivisional Magistrate ordered for the amalgamation of all the cases. All the four petitioners were present before the Subdivisional Magistrate on that date, and no objection was taken regarding their joint trial. The cases were then taken up on that date, and the examination of witnesses commenced. As many as 258 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and 279 by the defence. The examination of all the witnesses came to an end on the 12th of May 1950. It, however, appears from the order-sheet of that date that the defence, having examined 16 witnesses, filed a petition to examine some more witnesses and time was allowed; but, when the proceedings were taken up on the 19th of May 1950, the defence stated that they would not examine any more witnesses. The learned Magistrate heard the argument on the 23rd and the 24th of May 1950, and passed orders, as stated above, on the 30th of May 1950.
(3.) The first point taken in support of this application was that the learned Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Sections 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the result that the entire proceeding must be held to be bad in law and void. Section 112 is as follows :
"When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substances of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which : it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required." This section requires that the order must include "the substance of the information received" by the Magistrate, and it was contended that in the present case there has been a complete omission to set forth the substance of the information received by the Magistrate. In the present proceedings, the notices served upon the petitioners were in the following : terms :
"Whereas it appears from the report of the Sub-Inspector Police, Murliganj P. S., dated 9-12-49 that you are : (a) by habit a robber, house-breaker and thief; (b) by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen ; (c) habitually protect or harbour thieves and aid in the commission of offences of extortion, mischief, etc. : (d) habitually commit or attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences involving breach of the peace; (e) habitually aid in the concealment of stolen property; and (f) are so desperate and dangerous as to render you at large without security is hazardous to the community. In my opinion, it is better to draw up proceedings under Section 110, Cr. P. C. against you. I, therefore, call upon you the abovenamed accused to appear before me on 31-1-1950 and to show cause as to why you will not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 4,000/- each with four sureties of Rs. 1,000/- each to be of good behaviour for a period of three years.";