IBRAHIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI M.Mohammed Moopan,the learned counsel for the revision petitioner,attacks the order passed by the learned District Magistrate,Ernakulam,in M.C No.79 of 1973 dated 18 -8 -1973,as one without any propriety or legal basis.

(2.) THE facts are not clear from the order of the learned District Magistrate,an attested copy of which has been produced along with the revision petition.However,the following facts could be gathered from the facts stated by the revision petitioner in this petition.The petitioner was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police,Puthencruz at 4 -50 a.m.on 15 -5 - '73 and was produced before the Sub Magistrate's Court,Ernakulam on 16 -7 -1973.The arrest was purported to be under section 55(1 )(a)and(b)of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned Sub Magistrate remanded the petitioner till 30 -7 -1973.But on 18 -7 -1973 the Sub Magistrate released the petitioner on bail and directed him to be present on 30 -7 -1973.On 30 -7 -1973 the Sub Magistrate directed the petitioner to be present before the District Magistrate's Court,Ernakulam,on 4 -8 -1973.

(3.) THE procedure laid down in Chapter VIII of the Code is abundantly clear.It would appear that the procedure to be followed in respect of proceedings for prevention of offences as contemplated under Chapter VIII of the Code are to be governed by the detailed provisions contained in that Chapter itself.It is not necessary to deal with the scheme of the Chapter in detail.A person is required to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace or good behaviour for such a period as mentioned in the order either under section 107 or 110 Cr.P.C.as the case may be A further order under section 112 has to be passed setting forth the substance of the information received,the amount of the bond to be executed,the term for which it has to be in force and the number,character and class of sureties,if any,required.From the averments in the statement of facts it appears that in the instant case the proceedings initiated were under section 110(a)of the Code and that an order under section 112 also had been passed.The learned District Magistrate who passed the order under section 112 Cr P.C .,ought to have immediately proceeded to enquire into the matter to satisfy himself whether there was truth in the information received and should have either passed an interim order after satisfying himself in that behalf or should have let off the person if there was no material to substantiate that the information received was true.The learned District magistrate appears to be under the impression that the decision of this Court in Vein Ikkoran v. State of Kerala (1973 K.L.T.787)and that of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M.Monghyr (A.I.R 1971 S.C 2486)had laid down that the most convenient way of dealing with a person brought before the court under such circumstances was to remand him to custody,not for a day or two but even for fourteen days at one stretch.The object of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Code is far from what the learned District Magistrate appears to have understood to be.