K BHARGAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against an order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Alleppey under S.117(3) of the Cr. P. C. calling upon the Revision Petitioner to execute an interim bond for Rs. 1000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount. Proceedings under S.107 Cr. PC. were taken against the present Revision Petitioner and an order under S.112 was already passed against the Revision Petitioner. It was after that on 19-2-1969, the present order was passed by the learned Magistrate on a police report stating that the Revision Petitioner was "continuing those unlawful activities which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace in the locality," and an instance when the Revision Petitioner assaulted one person was also cited in the police report. On the police report the learned Magistrate passed the following order:-

(2.) This is not the type of order which the magistrate is expected to pass under S.117(3). It is clear from the Section itself that the reasons should be recorded by the learned magistrate in writing, but no reasons have been stated. This question has come up for judicial consideration many a time and the consensus of judicial opinion is that the magistrate must give reasons for such an emergent measure being taken. In Rachal Samaho v. Emperor (AIR (29) 1943 Sind 77) the learned Judges observed: