JAKKA VENKUREDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings in M. C. No. 17 of 1967 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kavali. By a preliminary order under Section 112 read with Section 107, Criminal P. C, dated 23. 9. 1967, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kavali has called upon the petitioners to appear before him and show cause why each of them should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1,000 With two sureties for like sum for keeping the peace for a period of one year. The order runs as follows: Whereas credible information has been laid before me by the Inspector of Police, Kovvur, that the above-said respondents have committed wrongful and violent acts mentioned below involving breach of peace and as the respondents have been indulging in unlawful acts likely to occasion a breach of peace and disturb the public tranquillity and whereas in my opinion there is sufficient ground for proceedings under Section 107, Cr. P. C. Sri M. J. Srinivasa Murthy, M. Sc. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kavali, do hereby require the said respondents to appear in person on 7. 10. 1967 at 11 a. m. at Kavali and show cause why every one of them should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand), each with two sureties for a like sum each for keeping peace for a period of one year. Thereafter as many as 27 incidents involving violence and which took place between 11. 8. 1967 and 23. 9. 1967. are enumerated.

(2.) IT is seen that the preliminary order states (1) that in the six weeks preceding the order there have been a large number of violent incidents in which some or other of the petitioners took part, (2) that the petitioners are continuing to indulge in unlawful activities, and (3) that such acts are likely to occasion breach of peace. Prima facie the requirements of Section 112 appear to be satisfied.

(3.) MR. Subba Reddy contends that all the incidents mentioned in the preliminary order relate to the past and that unless the preliminary order discloses that the petitioners are likely to commit any particular breach of the peace or that they are likely to commit any particular wrongful act which is likely to lead to a breach of the peace, no proceedings under Section 107 could instituted against the petitioners. In support of this proposition he relies upon the judgment of Kumarayya J. in Yedugundla Ramaniah v. State Criminal Revn. Case No. 395 of 1966 : 1968 Cri LJ 815 Andh Pra. That was a case in which the preliminary order under Section 112 did not even disclose that there was any likelihood of a breach of peace, but merely recited certain past acts and called upon the petitioners therein to show cause why they should not execute bonds for keeping the peace. Since the likelihood of a breach of peace is the foundation of the jurisdiction under Section 107, Cr. P. C. Kumarayya J. held that the proceedings against the petitioners could not be justified. Kumarayya J, however, referred to Maruthapalli Goundar v. Emperor 1937 Mad WN 48 : AIR 1937 Mad 356, with approval. It does not appear to have been brought to his notice that this decision was disapproved by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Muthuswami Chettiar, In re, (1940) 1 Mad LJ 11 : AIR 1940 Mad 23 (FB ). Leach, C. J. , has observed: While we agree that there must be something more than the past misconduct of the person proceeded against to justify a notice being served upon him, we are unable to agree that the Code requires the information to show the particular act which is in contemplation at the time. The Full Bench has also pointed out that the issue of the notice under Section 112 is merely a preliminary step and that far too such stress has been laid in the past on the wording of the notice and too little regard paid to the safeguards provided by the subsequent procedure. No order can be passed under Section 107 unless the enquiry which follows the issue of notice shows that the laying of the information was justified. The High Court can always interfere when the enquiry has not been held in accordance with law or a wrong conclusion has been arrived at.