PATEL DODDA GOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the report of toe Sub Inspector of Police, Channapatna Rural Police Station, slating tnat there were disputes between petitioners, who are caste Hindus, and Harijans of Mankunda village; that on 17-10-1972, i.e., Vijayadasami day, when the procession of the village deity was taken their dispute reached a climax that on 29-12-1872 one Chikkakendaiah, a Harijan, made a complaint against petitioners 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 alleging that tney had planned to assault and to murder him in connection with a land dispute and money transaction; that on 14-1-1973 a police constable who was on auty in that village had reported that on "13-1-1973 while one Hombalaiah, a Harijan, was beating a drum in connection with Pongai festival the petitoiners picked up a quarrel, which was likely to cause breach of peace; that one Nanjaiah, another Harijan, had given a complaint alleging that petitioners 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17 and 18 assaulted him and his wife and in that connection a case in crime No.6/73 had been registered under S.341 read with S.34 IPC, that on 17-1-1973 one Balayya orally reported that when he was returning to the village petitioner 16 hit him on his face with hands, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramanagaram, initiated proceedings under S.107 CrPC against the petitioners directing them to appear before the Magistrate on 27-3-1973 and to execute bonds for Rs.500 each to keep peace in the village. The Sub Divisional Magistrate further directed the petitioners to show cause as to why interim, bonds should not be taken from them as mentioned in the preliminary order during the pendency of the case. The later order purports" to be one under Section 117(3) CrPC.

(2.) Except in regard to one incident, regarding which a case has been registered under Sec.341 read with Sec.34 IPC against some of the petitioners, the other wrongful acts alleged against some the petitioners are very vague. It appears that the facts, as were stated by the Police, were not such as to encourage the Sub Divisional Magistrate to take action under Section 107 CrPC.

(3.) S.107 is one of the sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure designed to enable public officers to take action to prevent the commission of offences. They confer wide and unusual powers on the officers concerned. As the exercise of these powers necessarily results in interference with the liberty of the subject, the powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. S.107 CrPC empowers the Sub Divisional Magistrate to require a person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit on receipt of information that such person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or is likely to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, or disturb the public tranquillity, if in the opinion of the Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The sine qua non for the institution of a proceeding under this section is that the Magistrate shall be of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Now it is clear from a perusal of the order that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not directed the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds with or without sureties for keeping the peace for such a period not exceeding one year. As couid be seen, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has in fact, directed them to execute bonds to keep peace in the village for an unspecified period.