KANHAIYALAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case are very simple. A report was made on 14 -7 -61 by Harijan Krishi Sahakari Samiti under S. 107 Cri. Pro. Code alleging high -handedness of the applicant the details of which we are not at present concerned. After making some inquiry the police on 17 -8 -61 filed a challan for proceeding, under S. 107 Cri. Pro. Code before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate the Magistrate ordered service of notice under S. 112 on the applicant, took statements of two witnesses and passed an order on 17 -8 -61 asking the applicant to furnish interim security.

(2.) THE question before me is whether such an order demanding interim security could be passed before the non -applicant could appear. The Addl. Sessions Judge who made this references, thinks that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction unless the provisions of S.117 (1) of Cri. Pro. Code are complied with, the enquiry does not commence and no order can be passed demanding interim security. The District Judge therefore made this reference for quashing the order of the Magistrate.

(3.) THEREFORE what S. 112 authorises the Court is to issue a notice to show cause. He cannot pass any order asking the non -applicant to execute a bond, whereas S. 117 (3) gives the Court such jurisdiction. But before S. 117 (3) can be applied the non applicant must appeal before the Court as is required under S. 117. The Magistrate therefore has no jurisdiction to pass the final order asking the non -applicant to furnish a security.