MATHEWKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for consideration is whether the period of six months prescribed under sub-section (6) of S.116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure commences from the date of appearance of both parties to the enquiry proceedings or from the date of starting of recording of evidence.

(2.) Petitioners are counter petitioners in M.C. No. 25 of 1995 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palai. The proceedings were initiated by the Magistrate on the basis of the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Erattupetta on 4-8-1994, that the counter petitioners therein (petitioners herein) are likely to commit breach of peace in the locality, disturb public tranquillity and do wrongful acts that may cause a breach of the peace in and around the area of Panichipara kara in Poonjar Nadubhagam Village of Meenachil Taluk. By Ext. P2 order dated 25-8-1994, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the counter petitioners to appear before him at Palai on 8-9-1994 and show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- along with two sureties each for the like sum for a period of one year to keep peace in the locality. Petitioners had moved this Court earlier by Crl.M.C. No. 1825 of 1994 to quash that order. That request was rejected by order rendered on 1-12-1994. Since then the Magistrate by Ext. P6 order dated 8-12-1994 directed petitioners to execute an interim bond without sureties for keeping peace and public tranquillity till the final disposal of the complaint.

(3.) In the meantime, 1st petitioner had filed an Original Petition before this Court as O.P.No. 17991 of 1994 seeking a writ of certiorari or other appropriate direction to quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. That request was also declined by this Court with the observation that the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall give opportunity to petitioners to represent their grievance before him. Since then petitioners moved a petition before the Magistrate under S.116(6) of the Code for dropping the proceedings for the reason that the enquiry had not been completed within a period of six months as prescribed in that sub-section. The grievance of petitioners is that the Magistrate had not heeded to the submissions made by them in this behalf and the proceedings were adjourned for taking evidence. A bailable warrant is also alleged to have been issued to the witnesses who had not appeared before him on 25-3-1995. Quashing of Ext. P6 is sought by petitioners. A direction to the Magistrate to drop the proceedings under S.116(6) of the Code is also claimed.