STATE Vs. THOMAS MATHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has filed this petition seeking a revision of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate at Quilon in Crl. R.P. No. 1 of 1955 on the file of his Court. That order was passed under the following circumstances. In Miscellaneous Case No. 20 of 1952 on the file of the First Class Magistrates Court, at Pathanamthitta the learned Magistrate had started security proceedings under S.107 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure against the five counter petitioners in that case and on 25th August 1952, an order was passed under S.117(3) of the Code calling upon the counter petitioners to execute interim security bonds undertaking not to commit any breach of the peace by indulging in criminal acts. Bonds with two sureties were accordingly executed. Subsequently on 7th October 1952, the complainant in the miscellaneous case filed a petition that counter petitioners 4 and 5 had attempted to attack the petitioner and his servant with dangerous weapons like chopper and dagger on the previous day. That petition was forwarded to the Police for enquiry and report. The Sub Inspector reported that the counter petitioners 4 and 5 who had executed interim bonds under S.117(3), had committed the criminal acts as alleged by the petitioner. The learned Magistrate examined the petitioner and also the Sub Inspector who were both allowed to be cross examined by the counter petitioners. The complaint petition, dated 7th October 1952 was marked as Ext. A and the Sub-Inspectors report on that petition was marked as Ext. J(1). At that stage the case was transferred to the Additional First Class Magistrates Court at Chengannur where the case was renumbered as M.C. 16 of 1955. Both sides were heard on the allegations contained in the petition Ext. J in the light of the evidence recorded and the learned Magistrate passed an order on 10th October 1955 recording his findings that counter petitioners 4 and 5 had committed a breach of the undertaking in the bonds executed by them and had therefore forfeited the bonds. Counter petitioner 4 was accordingly remanded to custody and a warrant of arrest was issued against the 5th counter petitioner. Notices were directed to be issued to the sureties to show cause why their bonds should not be forfeited. Against this order of the First Class Magistrate the 4th counter petitioner preferred Crl. R.P. No. 1 of 1955 before the Additional District Magistrate at Quilon. In accepting the revision petition the learned District Magistrate held that the order of the First Class Magistrate forfeiting the bond was contrary to the provisions of S.121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in so far as the executants of the bond had not been convicted of any of the offences specified in that section. The State maintains that the view taken by the District Magistrate is erroneous and the present revision petition has been filed with the object of getting a ruling on that question. S.121 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays downs what would amount to a breach of a bond to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. That section states that

(2.) The procedure to be followed for enforcing the forfeiture of the bond as a consequence of such a breach of the bond is laid down in S.514 of the Code. Cl.1 of that section states that: