BHAGABAN PRADHAN Vs. JAYARAM MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that falls for determination in the case at hand is : Whether the Executive Magistrate. Bhubaneshwar had jurisdiction to continue the proceeding initiated in terms of S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Cr PC') after a period of six months from the date of commencement of inquiry under S. 116, Cr PC ?

(2.) Background facts necessary for adjudication of this question are as follows : On the basis of an application filed by Jayaran Mohanty (Opposite party no. 1 herein) before Executive Magistrate, Bhubeneshwar, on 28-4-1992, present petitioners and opposite party nos. 2 to 5 were directed by the said Magistrate by order dated 28-4-1992 to appear personally to show-cause why they shall not be asked to execute interim bond under S. 116(3), Cr PC and bond under S. 117, Cr PC, as he was satisfied that it was necessary to proceed against them. It is to be indicated here that two other persons (not parties in this present proceeding) were deleted from the proceeding before the Executive Magistrate. They were second party members in the said proceeding. On 7-5-1992 most of the second party members personally appeared and moved for time. The matter was adjourned from time to time. On 25-5-1993 opposite party no. 1 Jayaram submitted that there was still apprehension of breach of peace and prayed for continuance of the proceeding. The said prayer was accepted by the Executive Magistrate of the ground that in view of continuance of breach of peace, life of the proceeding was to be extended under S. 116(6), Cr PC. The said order is subject-matter of challenge in the present proceeding on the ground that the same has no legal sanction having been passed within (after) six months from the date of commencement of the inquiry.

(3.) The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, however, submitted that even if six months' period had elapsed, the Executive Magistrate was justified in extending the period when there was continuance of apprehension of breach of peace. Reference is made to S. 116(6), Cr PC.