GURUPADA SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule was obtained against an order, dated the 14th of December 1976 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Ram-purhat, Birbhum in N. G. R. (E) No. 80 of 76.

(2.) THE impugned order was passed under section 107 of the Code of criminal Procedure against the petitioner who is an Inspector, Food and supplies Department. The order directed him to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 500/- with one surety of like amount for maintenance of peace for a period of six months. The learned magistrate stated that he was satisfied that ''there was a chance of serious breach of peace by the petitioner as he was very dangerous and desperate in nature''. The said order was passed, it appears, on the petition, dated the 22nd September, 1976 of one Indu bhusan Sarkar, a neighbour of the petitioner at Duckbungalow Para, ram-purhat alleging inter alia that on June 16,1975 some people under the leadership of the petitioner tried to make a park by cutting several trees standing on the western part of his house and breaking fencing as a result of which he sustained injuries. Thereafter, again under the leadership of the petitioner one Khalibur Rahaman and others tried to make a park by throwing earth. On protest made by women folk they were abused. On these allegations the police submitted a report on november 13, 1976. In that report the police said that the applicant was being harrassed in various ways. Two cases bad already been started. The report, however, stated that the petitioner was not physically present on the spot at the time of the incidents but he was responsible for the two incidents. There was also apprehensions for breach of peace and the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to maintenance of public peace and tranquility. In the circumstances by the impugned order the petitioner was asked to show cause on the 8th of January, 1977 and a notice was served on him. The petitioner alleged that he felt ill and submitted an application through lawyer with a medical certificate for not being able to attend the court, but the learned Magistrate issued warrant of arrest and fixed january 17, 1977 for further hearing. Thereafter the petitioner moved this court and obtained an order of stay on january 10, 1977.

(3.) MR. Burman, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule firstly argued that the order and the notice, are at variance. The notice, inter alia, states "whereas it has been made to appear to me by credible information that you, the O. P. Member is very dangerous and desparate in nature. Your activity is prejudicial of the maintenancy to the public peace and you allow creating trouble upon the first party and every chance of the breach of the peace by you. " Mr. Burman commented that no person could have signed the notice after reading the same, inter alia, in view of the incorrect English. It merely shows that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind at all. According to Mr. Burman, the order and the notice being at variance the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding. The language used is not felicitous but what we are primarily concerned with are the contents of the notice. It is difficult to find discrepancy of any significance between the notice and the information received which would vitiate the entire proceeding. Although the nature of the english may be shocking to some of us yet we have positively outlived the days when use of ungrammatical or incorrect english by a Magistrate would be synonimous with non-application of the mind. However in this connection Mr. Burman relied on a decision by A. N. Banerjee, J. in Criminal Revision No. 1121 of 1975 (Nikhilesh Majumdar v. Lina Majumdar) who held that the notice must be in conformity with the order. He also relied on a decision by myself in Iltaf Hossain and others v. Anil Ch. Singh and another (Criminal rev. No. 1704 of 76, dt. 10. 3. 78 ).