ABDUL JABAR Vs. STATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is against an order dated the 21st April, 1968 passed by Sri D. N. Chatterjee, sub-Divisional Magistrate Rampurhat, district Birbhum, drawing up proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of criminal Procedure against the secondparty petitioners who are twenty in number, along with members of the first-party, directing them to show cause by the 4th May, 1968 as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000/- each with one surety of like amount each, to be of gpod behaviour for a period of one year.

(2.) THE facts leading on to the present Rule can be put in a short compass. On a report submitted by the police on the 19th April, 1968 under section 107|117, Sub-section (3) Cr. P. C. against both the first and the second-parties, the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampurhat, was pleased by his order dated the 21st april, 1968 to draw up proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. against both the parties, asking them to show cause by 4. 5. 68 as to why they should not be directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000/- each with one surety of like amount each, to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The police report stated, among others, that there was dispute and friction between the two parties originating on the 24th" december, 1966 when Majahar Sk. and other members of the second-party. looted away paddy from the land of gangadhar Mondal, uncle of Mukti mondal of the first-party. A case was started under Sections 379|147 of the indian Penal Code which ended in a charge-sheet against the members of tthe second-party on the 28th February, 1967 and was Sub-judice at the time of the filing of the police report. Since then, the members of the second-party had committed many wrongful, acts to put the members of the first-party in trouble and several cases were started over the same. The members of the first-party also committed some wrongful acts against the members of the second-party over which again some cases were started which are now sub judice. As members of both the parties were likely to commit wrongful acts and commit breach of the peace and disturb the public tranquility, the recommendation was that they may be directed to show cause under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and that pending the completion of the enquiry, both the parties may be called upon to execute bonds under Section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. The matter thereafter proceeded and some of the members of the two parties appeared before the learned Magistrate and were directed to be released on bail. The order dated the 21st april, 1968, drawing up the proceedings under section 107 Cr. P. C. by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has been impugned by the second-party-petitioners and the present Rule was obtained.

(3.) MR. G. B. Hazra, Advocate, who led Mrs. Jyotirmoyee Nag, Advocate, was allowed by her to argue the case on behalf of the second-party-petitioners. In his impassioned argument Mr. Hazra raised a four-fold contention. The first contention of Mr. Hazra is that the provisions of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are preventive and not punitive and in that context he pin-pointed the intention of the legislature in enjoining the said provisions, conferring wide powers interfering with the liberty of the subject and therefore required to be exercised strictly in accordance with law. The learned Advocate referred to some cases in this context. The second contention of Mr. Hazra is that the police report leading on to the present proceedings does not bring the case within the ambit of section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at best purports to establish some offences under the Indian Penal Code for which the proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. cannot do duty. The third contention of Mr. Hazra is that the form of the order is bad as also the notice issued thereunder, not conforming to the mandatory provisions of Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vitiating the resultant proceedings. The fourth and last submission of Mr. Hazra is that even the order itself as passed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Rampurhat, drawing up the purported proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Ciminal Procedure, is ex facie bad in law and improper because it calls upon the party concerned to be of good behaviour and the same is clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Hazra was robustly optimistic of his arguments and at one stage urged that the submissions made by him are incontrovertible. This Court, however, did not share his optimism without hearing the other side and Mr. Jahar lal Roy, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State also contended that the arguments of Mr. Hazra are not sustainable in law or on merits and that in any event, he wanted to join issue with the same. Mr. Roy has contended In the first place that the sub-Divisional Magistrate has not in any way overlooked the purpose of a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being preventive and not punitive and as such the contention of Mr. Hazra is more technical than real. As regards the second submission of Mr. Hazra, Mr. Boy contended that the police report does make out a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the parties concerned were likely to commit a breach of the peace disturbing thereby the public tranquility. As to the form of the order Mr. Roy submitted that there is no material non-conformance to Section 107 cr. P. C. and in any event the petitioners have not been prejudiced thereby in any way. As to the fourth and last submission of Mr. Hazra, Mr. Roy's reply is that it appears that the use of the expression "good behaviour" is apparently a mistake and the entire order is to be read for ascertaining the correct position,. bringing the proceedings within the purview of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.