MAYARAM Vs. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.81 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1981 and confirming the order passed by the S.D.M. Kirti Nagar under Sections 107/116 Crimial P.C. in Criminal Case. No. 44 of 1981 requiring the applicant to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1000.00 and one surety in the like amount to keep peace and be of a good behaviour for a period of one year.

(2.) Placing reliance upon Raghuhir Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, 1979 Allahabad Criminal Rulings 503 ' it has been argued that the proceedings were not completed within six months of their commencement and, therefore, in view of Sec. 116 (6) of Crimial P.C. the proceedings are automatically terminated. The record shows, that on 29.7.81 the revisionist was present in the Court of the Magistrate where notice was read over to him and his statement was also recorded. The commencement of enquiry in sub-sections (3) and (6) of Sec. 116 Cr. P.C. starts when the Magistrate proceeds in legal way to put the allegations to test for finding out whether they are true facts. In the instant case the allegations against him were put to test on 29.7.81 for finding out whether they were true or not when the statement of the applicant was recorded. The judgment was passed on 20.11.81. It would, thus, be clear that the proceedings terminated within six months of their commencement. It cannot therefore, be said that Sec. 116 (6) of Cr. P.C. was attracted.

(3.) It was then urged that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. This is a finding of fact and I do not think it can be gone into this revision. However, from the record I find that the applicant first obtained stay order from the appellate court and con,sequently did not file the bail bond. In this revision vide order dated 23.3.82 the orders passed by the courts below were stayed. About 12 years have passed. It does not appear that there has been any incident of breach of peace on behalf of the applicant. In these circumstances I am of the view that no useful purpose would he served by directing the revisionist to file the required bond at this stage. In this view of the matter the revision is to he allowed.