LAKSHMANAN VELAYUDHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.R.P. No. 302/1124 is brought on behalf of the State. The learned Public Prosecutor who appears for the State contends that the order made by the learned Sessions Judge of Nagercoil in Cr.M.P. No. 115/1124 on the file of his court was passed without jurisdiction. To appreciate this contention it is necessary to set forth some of the salient facts briefly. The respondent is described as the Secretary of the South Travancore Salt Factory Workers Union. Proceedings were initiated against him under S.104 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure. He was made to execute an interim bond on 30.5.1124 pending disposal of the case against him. Before the case was disposed of, it was alleged that he had violated some of the conditions of the bond, and thereupon on 28.6.1124 the Police Inspector of the locality moved the Magistrate who had taken the bond, for cancellation of that bond. On 5.7.1124, after examining the Inspector of Police who made the application, the Magistrate directed the cancellation of the bond and remanded the counter petitioner to custody. Then the counter petitioner moved the Sessions Court of Nagercoil for bail and he succeeded in obtaining an order in his favour. It is alleged in this petition that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order under S.407 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the order passed by the Magistrate must be deemed to be one made under S.113, Cl.3 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure and when such an order has been passed, it is contended that the Sessions Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail and to grant it as the Court has done in the present case. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of S.409 of the Travancore Code of Criminal Procedure. The first part of the Section deals with the amount of the bond executed under the chapter in which the Section is to be found. The second part of the Section which is the relevant portion for the purpose of this case reads as follows:-

(3.) Cr.R.P. No. 277/1124 is presented on behalf of the respondent in Cr.R.P. No. 302/1124. Exception is taken to the order of the Magistrate cancelling the interim security bond executed by the petitioner in this matter which has already been adverted to in the order which we have just pronounced in Cr.R.P. No. 302/1124. We have already expressed our views in the order in Cr. R.P. 302/1124 and we feel no doubt that the Magistrate will bear in mind the point that we have stressed in that order, that is to say, that he will consider whether there is any longer any apprehension of a breach of the peace taking place. Moreover, it is alleged that since a period of two years has elapsed from the date of the order the proceedings themselves might have become infructuous in view of the fact that security can be taken under S.103 only for a year. This point also will be considered by the Magistrate in deciding whether the case should be struck off his file and liberty given to the police, if so advised, to initiate fresh proceedings if the circumstances warrant the same.