PARAS NATH PRASAD Vs. SURAJDEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were members of the second party in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). On the 5th June, 1965, the proceeding was decided against the petitioners and they were ordered to execute a bond of rupees one thousand each with two sureties each of the like amount, undertaking to maintain peace for a period of ten months, or, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Sessions Court on the 7th September, 1965. Thereupon, the petitioners came up to this Court in revision, but the criminal revision also was dismissed on the 29th September, 1966. After that, the first party moved the learned Magistrate for taking steps to execute the order made in the proceeding against the petitioners. Ultimately, by the impugned order, passed on the 10th of June, 1967, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioners to comply with the order of execution of the bond, recalling the issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest, which had been earlier issued against them and giving them time until the 8th of July, 1967.

(2.) The propriety of the order of the 10th June, 1967, falls for consideration in this case.

(3.) It will be noticed that in the original order of the 5th June, 1965, no date was fixed for the commencement of the period of the bond, which was ten months, which the petitioners had to execute. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the said period of ten months would have commenced from the 5th June, 1965, itself, having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Code. But, in the present case, the operation of the original order dated the 5th June, 1965, was stayed by the superior courts and the stay order remained operative until the 29th September, 1966, when the criminal revision filed by the petitioners in this Court was dismissed. In the order of this Court dated the 29th September, 1966, also no fresh date, as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Code, was fixed. But, having regard to the fact that the operation of the original order dated the 5th June 1965, had remained stayed all the time, it is manifest that the said order could not be enforced until after the withdrawal of the stay order, which was done on the 29th September, 1966, and, as such, the period of ten months must be deemed to have commenced with effect from the 29th September, 1966. The view which I have expressed above is supported by the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jangi Gope and Ors. v. The State through Ram Sakal Singh . The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in taking steps for carrying out the original order dated the 5th June, 1965, as upheld by the High Court by the 29th September, 1966.