RAM LAL MALLAH Vs. LALL CHAND MALLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against an order under Section 107 taken with Section 118, Criminal P. c. binding down the petitioners to keep the peace for the period of one year.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are as follows : The petitioners are bargadars under the opposite party in respect of about one hundred bighas of land. The opposite party instituted Proceedings before the Bagchas Board for obtaining possession of the lands from the bargadars. Before the Bhagchas Board the petitioners filed petitions promising to surrender the lands voluntarily. Thereafter he filed an application in the Court 'istafanamas' purporting to surrender the lands. This was in Aswin corresponding to September or October, 1954, but in Kartick (the first part of November, 1954) the petitioners ploughed the lands in disregard of the 'istafanamas' which they had executed. The opposite party protested and he was threatened and was therefore unable to stop the cultivation of the lands by the petitioners. Thereafter he filed an application in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hooghly, for drawing up Proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C. against the present petitioners and also for an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. on them. On 16-11-1954, Mr. N. Khastgir, after receiving the petition and hearing the lawyer for the opposite party, issued notice on the present petitioners asking them to show cause why action should not be taken against them as prayed for. On 22-12-1954, after considering the cause shown by the present petitioners and hearing lawyers of both Parties, Mr. K. Sen, Sub-divisional Magistrate, drew up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C. directing the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds for the sum of Rs. 100/- each with one surety of like amount to keep the peace for one year. Thereafter on 31-5-1955, Mr. K. Sen transferred the case for disposal to Mr. A. K. Banerjee, Magistrate, First Class, and the case was heard and disposed of by Mr. A. K. Banerjee who passed the order binding down the petitioners. There was an appeal to the Sessions Judge which was dismissed.

(3.) The first point urged by Mr. Bhatta-charjee appearing for the petitioners is that the Proceedings were illegal because Mr. Khastgir before whom the petition was filed did not record the substance of the information as required by 6. 112, Criminal P. C. It appeals, however, that Mr. Khastgir did not draw up proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C. but merely issued notice asking the petitioners to show cause why proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P. C. should not be taken against them. The proceedings were actually initiated by Mr. K. Sen, Sub-divisional Magistrate, on 22-12-1954, and Mr. K. Sen complied with the Provisions of Section 112, Criminal P. C., recording the substance of the information and the terms of the bond which were to be executed by the petitioners. Thus, there was no illegality and there is no substance in the first point urged by Mr. Bhattacharjee.