CHEEKIREDDY SUBBA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are petitions seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this court under Section 561-A Cr. P C. and quash the security proceedings instituted against them under section 107 Cr. P. C. For a proper appreciation of the questions of law arising for decision in these petitions, it would be sufficient if we set out the facts in one of the cases. For the sake of convenience, we shall set out the facts in Crl. M. P. 1676 of 1972.

(2.) On credible information laid by the Sub Inspector of ' Police Vidavalur that the petitioners were likely to commit breach of peace or do a wrongful act which may probably cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquility, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kavali was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and issued a preliminary order under Section 112 Cr. P. C, The learned magistrate passed this order on 29th July, 1972. By the said order the petitioners were directed to appear in person on 19-8-1972 at Kavali and show cause why every one of them should not be ordered to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 500/- with two surities for a like sum each for keeping peace for a period of one year. The several incidents involving violence indulged in by the petitioners are set out in the order. As many as six incidents involving violence committed by the petitioners, between 21-7-1971 and 7-7-7972 are set out. The enquiry under Section 117 Cr. F. C. into the truth of the information laid before the magistrate is still to commence under Section 117 Cr. P.C. In such enquiry it is open to the Magistrate either to direct the persons proceeded against to give security under Section 118 Cr. P. C. or to discharge them under Section 119 Cr. R, C. The order now issued by the learned magistrate is only a preliminary order under Section 112 Cr. R. C. calling upon the persons informed against to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bound with or without surities for keeping peace for a period of one yean The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that information regarding past acts involving breach of peace alleged to have been committed by the petitioners about a year prior to the said information is not reasonably sufficient for coming to the conclusion that there is likelihood of imminent breach of peace. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of our learned brother A. V. Krishna Rao, J, in Crl. M. P. Nos: 1863/ 71 and 56/72 dated 24-2-1972. The learned Judge in this case expressed the opinion that even past violent acts said to have been committed about a month prior to the laying of information under Section 107 Cr. P. C. are not sufficient to justify the passing of a preliminary order under Section 112 Cr. P. C. In Y. Ramanayya Vs. State Kumarayya, J. (as he then was) also expressed the view that mere acts of violence in the past would not justify action under Section 107 Cr. P. C. Before we proceed to consider this contention it would be appropriate to notice the setting in which section 107 appears in the "Code of Criminal Procedure. This Section appears in Chapter VIII Part IV headed "Prevention of Offences". The object of this chapter is obviously the prevention of and not the punishment for offences. The provisions are primarily and essentially aimed at persons who are a danger to the public by reason of their wrongful or violent acts. The procedure presctibed in enquiry is materially different from that prescribed in part VI of the Code dealing with "Proceeding in prosecutions" which provide for punishment. The persons brought before the Court in 107 Cr. P. C. proceedings are not accused, charged with commission of any offence at all, but are only respondents. On the contrary part VI of the Code deals with "proceedings in prosecution of accused persons". They have either to be convicted, acquitted or discharged. In a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P. C. the persons proceeded against are only called on to give security for keeping the peace. The provision is therefore a measure (or protection of the society and nothing else. Such is the reason and spirit behind the Section.

(3.) What then is the nature and source of information which is sufficient for action under the Section? The Section in so far as it is relevant for our purposes reads as follows: Section 107 (1) : "Whenever a Presidency Magistrate" District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or distrurb the public tranquility, or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility, the magistrate if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding may, in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the magistrate thinks fit to fix".