- (1.) This revision application has been preferred against the judgment dated 8.6.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 33 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barhi dated 29.6.2010 in Misc. Case No. 174 of 2009 in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioners to execute bond of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties in order to keep peace for a period of one year, has been affirmed. The facts of the case are not required to be stated in detail in view of points raised on behalf of the petitioners. Suffice is to say that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was initiated at the instance of the present opposite party No. 2 Jhaman Sao, on the basis of a police report submitted by the Officer-in-Charge, Barhi on 6.6.2009. Whereafter both the parties were directed to appear and file their respective show causes. The present petitioners appeared and filed their show cause and the first party also filed their show cause and then after completion of the inquiry under Section 116 of the Code, final order was passed on 29.6.2010 directing the second party-petitioners to execute bond as indicated above. The said order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate was challenged by filing an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 8.6.2012. The said order is under challenge in this revision application.
(2.) Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing to execute the bond was without jurisdiction as the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code which was initiated by order dated 20.6.2009, was subsequently extended for a period of six months by order dated 11.12.2009 but no 'special reason' whatsoever in terms of Section 116 was assigned for the said extension and therefore the order was not inconformity with the mandatory provision of Section 116(6) of the Code. It was further submitted that even after first extent ion of six months, the proceeding continued beyond the period of another six months but this time even no order extending the period was passed and the Appellate Court failed to consider that the mandatory provision as provided under sub-section 6 of Section 116 of the' Code was not followed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barhi.
(3.) Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the court below by following the direction given in sub-section 6 of Section 116 of the Code, extended the period of inquiry for six months and there was no violation of any of the provision of the Code rather the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barhi after proper inquiry contemplated under Section 116 of the Code, rightly directed the petitioners to execute bond for maintaining for a period of one year.;