CHARLES DE COURNALAY AND Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises from proceedings instituted by the police against the present petitioners under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. before the Assistant Commissioner and Ex-Ofticio First Class Magistrate, Tarikere. On receipt of the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tarikere, and after taking the sworn statement of the Police Sub-Inspector, the learned Magistrate made an order under Section 112, Cr.P.C. and notified the petitioners to show cause why each of them should not be called upon to enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000 and to furnish one surety in a like sum for keeping the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. He also directed that each of them should furnish an interim bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for a like sum pending conclusion of the enquiry. This direction is obviously under Section 117(3) of the Code.

(2.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has challenged the initiation of the proceedings as unwarranted and contends that the order under Section 117(3), Cr.P.C. is totally unjustified. Along with the revision petition an application was made by the petitioners to stay the order calling upon them to give interim security of Rs, 10,000 under Section 117(3). In the affidavit supporting the application it was stated that when the petitioners offered even to give their coffee estate as security by way of mortgage, the learned Magistrate would not accept it. When the revision petition came. up for admission an order was made staying further proceedings subject to each of the petitioners producing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 117(3), Cr.P.C. and the records were called for.

(3.) Petitioner 1 is the wife of Sri Charles De Courpalay and petitioner 2 is their son. It is seen from a perusal of the records that according to the police report there was dispute between the petitioners and Sri Charles De Courpalay in regard to the possession and management of the coffee estate known as Sampigekan Estate, that there was litigation between them, that in the month of June 1960 there had been incidents' showing high-handed action by the petitioners in Sri Charles De Courpalay's bungalow and the cooly lines of the estate during the absence of Sri Charles De Courpalay and that on the 18th July, when he returned to the estate, he was subjected to foul abuse by the petitioners and that petitioner 2 threatened to beat him and they conducted themselves violently, that similar conduct was exhibited on the 19th and that on the 20th they assaulted him. The sworn statement of the Sub-Inspector recorded by the Magistrate contains substantially the same allegations. It should be added that according to the report and the sworn statement some of these acts took place on 20th July, 1960, in the presence of the Sub-Inspector and the Circle Inspector who had gone to the estate on receiving Sri Charles De Courpalay's complaint. After recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate made the following order: On a perusal of the report of the Sub-Inspector, Tarikere Kasaba Police Station and also on his sworn statement recorded today, I am satisfied that the respondents 1 and 2 noted above have committed series of wrongful acts continuously endangering the life of Mr. Charles De Courpalay and his personal staff, apprehending to be tending a breach of peace and disturb the public tranquillity. It is therefore ordered to take up proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C., and to show cause as to why they should not be called upon to enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each and also each to furnish one surety in a like sum for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. I further direct that each respondent should furnish an interim bond in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in a like sum pending conclusion of the enquiry. The learned Magistraee directed the issue of summonses to the petitioners enclosing copies of the order. In response to the summonses the petitioners appeared before the Court on the 26th July, 1960. The order sheet relating to that date reads: