C V ANANDAN MASTER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Criminal Revision Petition, the order of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod forfeiting the bond executed by revision petitioners in a proceeding under S.107 Cr. P.C., is challenged.

(2.) The District Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Cannanore initiated proceeding under S.107 Cr. P.C., against 46 persons including the petitioners 1 to 4 and by his order dated 5-11-'69, the petitioners 1 to 4 and others were directed to execute a bond for Rs. 2,000/- each with two solvent sureties for like amount under S.112 read with proviso to S.114 Cr. P.C. The said proceeding was later transferred to the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod, who, pending enquiry, directed the revision petitioners 1 to 4 and others to enter into an interim bond to keep the peace for Rs. 500/- each with two solvent sureties for a like amount under S.117(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. While the said enquiry was pending, the Sub Inspector of Police, Bekal brought to the notice of the Executive First Class Magistrate by his reports dated 12-1-70 and 3-3-70 that the revision petitioners 1 to 4 committed a breach of the peace, in as much as the petitioners 1 and 2 involved themselves in offences under S.143, 144, 447, 427, 379 & 506 A read with S.149 IPC., in Crime Nos. 10/1970, 11/1970 and 18/1970 and the petitioners 3 and 4 involved themselves for the offences under S.323 and 324 read with S.34 IPC., in Crime No. 183/69 of Bekal Police Station. On the basis of that report, the Executive First Class Magistrate summoned the revision petitioners 1 to 4 and in their presence the Sub Inspector was examined on oath on 20-4-70 and their Advocate cross examined the Sub Inspector. The revision petitioners 5 and 6 are the sureties, who also executed similar bonds for the like amount of Rs. 500/-. On an appreciation of that evidence together with the reports of the Sub Inspector, the Executive First Class Magistrate passed the following order:

(3.) The learned counsel of the revision petitioners attack the above order. The first ground of attack was that the Executive First Class Magistrate did not comply with S.514(1) read with S.121 Cr. P.C., in passing the order aforesaid. The relevant provisions of those two sections are as follows: