MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The S.H.O., Haus Qazi, Delhi sent a report dated 12 -3 -1974 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kamla Market to the effect that on 11 -3 -1974 , about 1.00 P.M. the petitioner and some other persons were found standing in batches of two near Farash Khana in which locality a communal riot had occurred some days previously and that they were blaming the members of the opposite community for pausing the riot and were also threatening to use force A against them and to indulge in further rioting. It was also stated in the report that they did not disperse even when asked to do so by the police and that, Therefore, in order to avoid an imminent breach of the peace they were arrested by the police and were being produced before the le,arned Magistrate. It was also stated in the report that proceedings may be instituted against them under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C.

(2.) On receipt of this report, the learned Magistrate passed orders under Sec. 112 Criminal Procedure Code . read with Sec. 107 Criminal Procedure Code . requiring the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000.00 with two sureties in the like amount for keeping the peace for a period of one year. The order was read over to the petitioner and he denied the allegations made against him in the said order. The learned Magistrate then proceeded to record the statement of witnesses and on the basis of such evidence, he passed an order on the same date, i.e., on 12 -3 -1974, under Sec. 117(3) Criminal Procedure Code . directing the petitioner to execute an interim bond in the amount of Rs. 10,000.00 with two sureties for keeping the peace during the pendency of the proceedings under Sec. 107 Criminal Procedure Code .

(3.) The petitioner filed a revision petition in the Court of Session challenging the validity of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 112 as well as under Sec. 117(3) Criminal Procedure Code . The order under Sec. 112 Criminal Procedure Code . was challenged on the ground that the substance of the information on the basis of which the proceedings under Sec. 107 had been started against him was not stated in the order. The order under Sec. 117(3) was challenged on the ground that Sec. 117(3) did not apply to cases under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who heard his revision petition, did not accept the contention of the petitioner so far as the order under Sec. 117(3) Criminal Procedure Code . was concerned and held that it was properly passed. But he accepted the contention of the petitioner in respect of the order under Sec. 112 Criminal Procedure Code . and held that this order did not contain the substance of the information on the basis of which proceedings under Sec. 107 had been instituted. He has, Therefore, made a. reference to this Court with a recommendation that the order under Sec. 112 Criminal Procedure Code . be quashed and that the learned Magistrate be directed to pass a valid order and issue proper notice under Sec. 112 Criminal Procedure Code . containing necessary particulars regarding the substance of the information.