ABDUL NAIM KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants geek to revise the order dated 4. 10. 1951 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ashta, ordering them to furnish security for Rs. 1,000 each for keeping peace for a period of three months. Their appeal against the order is dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the ease are stated in the orders of both the lower Courts and need not be repeated. The points pressed in this Court are: (i) that the original and appellate Courts misunderstood that by the statements of the applicants, in reply to the preliminary order and the notice, they had consented to furnish the security and it is urged that they agreed to furnish the security only for bail during the proceedings; (ii) that they had denied the allegations against them and there was no evidence on record to justify the order.

(3.) THE preliminary order or notice dated 4. 10. 1951 clearly indicates that according to the Magistrate, the applicants were feared to commit breach of peace at the time of approaching Moharram and Desbra holidays simply because they had1 filed an application to the police that the feelings of the Muslims were injured by the passing of the procession in celebration of the Mahatma Gandhi Jayanti alongside the mosque. To this the applicants replied that they had signed the application prepared by one Kallu Master who told them that it was against the new road by which the procession had passed. They added that they wore not even present at the mosque at the time and lastly that they were prepared to furnish security. One of them stated that he was willing to furnish a bond as desired by the Police.