BHUMIRAJ RAMSWAMI TEWAR Vs. SR INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by Special Executive Magistrate, Matunga Division, Mumbai dated-2-5-1997 by which he dismissed the initial objection raised by the petitioner in respect of Chapter Case No. 11 of 1997 - under section110 (e), (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience ).

(2.) SHRI. Chavan placed reliance on the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Lalookhan Haideralikhan Vs. M. M. Kamble, Special Executive Magistrate, Byculla Division, Bombay and others, reported in 1996 Cri. L. J. 801. By placing reliance on that judgment he submitted that for proceeding against a person in view of provisions of section110 of the Code, he should have been convicted for any offence in the Court. SHRI. Chavan submitted that in the present case only complaints have been mentioned which has been filed against the applicant in police station and there is nothing on record to show that the present petitioner has been convicted in any of those offences complained of. He submitted that in the matter of one complaint the petitioner was in jail at the relevant time. SHRI. Chavan submitted that some other complaints are relating to the activities of the alleged friends of the petitioner and, therefore, for their acts, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. SHRI. Chavan submitted that the impugned order is illegal and, therefore, it be set aside.

(3.) CLAUSE (g) indicates that such person should be "so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community". Therefore, while dealing with such cases, Magistrate would be obliged to consider the instances even alleged to have been committed by him. He may look for the information about the activities of such persons for coming to a reasonable conclusion whether his being at large, is hazardous to the safety of the community. He has to come to a reasonable conclusion whether his being at large is safe to the public tranquility and welfare of the society concerned. The Magistrate would bee entitled to judge subjectively whether he is a bravado, whether he is so dangerous so as to make his being at large dangerous and hazardous to the welfare of the society concerned. The higher Court would be examining whether there has been sufficient material allowing the concerned Magistrate to come to such a reasonable conclusion.