CHANDRASEKHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings were initiated by the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Station, Palghat, against 54 persons, who are the petitioners here, under S.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. A preliminary order under S.112 of the Code was passed and served on them. The substance of the charge against the petitioners was that they, who are residing within the local limits of the Executive First Class Magistrate, Palghat, were indulging in unlawful acts and were engaged in other illegal acts leading to imminent breach of the peace. The petitioners are said to be active members of the Mazdur Sangh and are alleged to be a violent type of people and that their illegal activities resulted in communal clashes and riots in the Palghat town. It is said that a satyagraha was going on in front of the shop of one Subramania Moothan and Krishna Moothan, that on 8-6-1972 the activities of the petitioners became violent, that they manhandled one Balasubramanian, a worker of Krishna Moothan, that they led a jatha and pelted stones at the Youth Congress office and destroyed window glasses, photos etc. It is further alleged that some of the petitioners were involved in criminal cases. The Executive First Class Magistrate on the information available was satisfied that the activities of the petitioners were likely to cause breach of the peace and, therefore, initiated proceedings under S.107 of the Code.

(2.) The police arrested the petitioners and took them into custody on 9-6-1972 and it is averred by the petitioners that they were kept in custody till 10-6-1972 on which day they were produced before the Magistrate who passed an order under S.112 and the same was served on them. The Magistrate also directed the petitioners to execute an interim bond for Rs. 1,000/- with two sureties in the like sum to keep peace for a period of one year. It is this direction by the Magistrate to execute an interim bond under S.117(3) of the Code that is the subject matter in this revision.

(3.) The Code lays down an elaborate procedure to be followed in proceedings under S.107. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate to proceed under S.107, to issue an order under S.112, and for directing persons to execute interim bonds under S.117 have been elaborately considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Madhu Limaye v. S. D. M. Monghyr ( AIR 1971 SC 2486 ). Their Lordships observe that the provisions contained in S.107 to 110 and 112 to 119 are in aid of orderly society and seek to nip in the bud conduct subversive of the peace and public tranquillity and for this purpose the Magistrates are invested with large judicial discretionary powers for the preservation of public peace and order. From para 40 onwards Their Lordships discuss the procedure to be adopted before invoking S.117 of the Code with which we are concerned here. There was wide conflict in judicial opinion regarding the manner in which S.117(3) was to be invoked. Their Lordships observe: