SADAYARI Vs. PARMASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Periakulam, directing the members of the A and B parties, except counter petitioner No.7 to execute an interim bond for a Slim of Rs. 500/- on their own surety till the disposal of the case.

(2.) The notice issued under, Section 111, Criminal Procedure Code shows that information was furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Police against both A party and B party alleging that they are disturbing the tranquility of the village. As many as five instances are furnished in the notice which clearly show that there was a likelihood of breach of the peace. The first instance shows that A party formed themselves into an unlawful with deadly weapons with the common intention of committing trespass into the land of counter petitioner No.1 of B party. It is also seen that a criminal case is pending in respect of that information. So also the second instance as well as the third and the fourth instances show that criminal cases are pending against the A party as they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons for committing trespass into the land of B party counter petitioners and for destroying garden produce worth Rs. 13,000/- and for assaulting one Rajendran of B party.

(3.) Two Points are raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and they are: (1) that the Magistrate was wrong in clubbing both A party and B party together and binding them over to execute a bond in the same proceedings and (2) that the period mentioned in the order for which the bond should be in force is rather vague.