KARTICK CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. PANNA LAL CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five petitioners in this case were ordered by Sri T.B. Sing, Magistrate, First Class, Barrackpore, to execute a bond, under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of Rs. 1,000 each with two sureties of the like amount for a period of one year. Their appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge of Alipore was also' dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are all young men and residents of Kumarpara within the jurisdiction of Titagarh Police Station, are members of a local club named 'Kishore Sangh'. In the locality of Kumarpara there are several residential houses in some of which several Government servants, mostly optees from Pakistan, live with their families. Some of the residents have school going grown -up daughters. It is alleged that since 1950 some young men of the locality including the petitioners have been indulging in unbecoming activities by following the girls on their way to school much to the annoyance of the girls themselves. This conduct was resented by the guardians. The matter did not end there. The petitioners and their associates then started insulting and threatening the guardians and began throwing stones and crackers etc. at their houses. A number of complaints were made to the Sub -divisional Officer and Sub -divisional Police Officer, Barrackpore. A large number of general diary entries were also made against them at the thana. Sometime back a daughter of the opposite party Pannalal Chatterjee was kidnapped and one Mukunda Ghose, a cousin of petitioner No. 5, Sudhir Ghose, married her which marriage was against the consent of the opposite party Pannalal Chatterji and was not approved of by him. There was a previous proceeding against the petitioners which was dropped on the undertaking given by the petitioners and others that they would not disturb public tranquillity. After the previous proceedings were dropped, there was a lull in their activities for some time but they again began to Insult the opposite party, threatened him and assaulted his son. They continued again troubling the residents of the locality. On a petitionby the opposite party made to the Sub -divisional Officer, Barrackpore, there was a police enquiry and on the police report proceedings were drawn up under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sri B.B. Mukherji, Magistrate, to whom the case was transferred recorded the evidence of both the parties but before he could pass final orders he was transferred and the case taken up by the successor -in -office Sri T.B. Sing who heard arguments and passed final orders.

(3.) IN this connection the case of Kali Charan Duary v. State, : AIR1954Cal577 , may be seen. That was a judgment of Das Gupta and Debabrata Mookerjee, JJ., in a case where the question of applicability of Section 350 of the Code arose in connection with a proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At p. 1039 (of Cal WN): (at pp. 578 -579 of AIR), their Lordships repelled the argument advanced that an order requiring security was in substance a conviction and also the argument that by reason of Sub -section (2) of Section 117 of the Code, all the provisions of the Code relating to trial, wherever they occur, were attracted. Their Lordships pointed out that Ch. VIII of the Code dealt with prevention of offences and a person proceeded against under Section 107 of the Code was a competent witness to his own case. The difference between enquiry and trial was also pointed out. 4a. The next point raised by the petitioners was that the present proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not maintainable inasmuch as a previous proceeding ended in the discharge of the petitioners. In my view, there is no substance in this point either. The previous proceedings did not terminate after a proper enquiry. The petitioners there gave an undertaking not to disturb the public tranquility or cause breach of the peace whereupon the matter was not allowed to proceed any further and dropped. The present proceedings cover instances not covered by the former. Moreover, the very nature of the proceedings indicate that for fresh happenings fresh proceedings can be drawn up.