L. RAMGOPAL RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a member of the Bar and practices at Parlakhemundi. The Officer -in -charge, Parlekhemundi P.S. submitted a report, to the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Parlakhemundi on 13 -6 -1983 listing a number of criminal cases and incidents in which the Petitioner is alleged to be involved and requesting that the Petitioner should be bound down for good behaviour under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On consideration of the police report by his order dated 4 -8 -1983, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of a notice to the Petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for good behaviour for a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - for a period of one year. It appears from the order -sheet of the learned Magistrate that the Petitioner was produced in court on the strength of a warrant of arrest on 9 -8 -1983 and released on bail on the same day. The case was next posted to 12 -9 -1983 when the Petitioner prayed for an adjournment to file his show cause. Thereafter the Petitioner filed the present application in this Court praying that the proceeding under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure pending against him should be quashed.

(2.) THE police report against the Petitioner covers a period of five years from 1978 to 1983. In all 16 incidents beginning on 19 -10 -78 and ending on 17 -3 -83, are included in the report besides two extracts, one from a news -paper report and the other from a resolution of the Parlakhemundi Bar. Of the 16 incidents prosecution was launched against the Petitioner in 8 cases under various sections of the I.P.C., Code of Criminal Procedure, Police Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act. The report also states that the Petitioner has no previous conviction to his credit. The result of the cases started against the Petitioner are not known. So far as the other incidents are concerned, the allegations made against the Petitioner inter alia are that he had taken pari in processions and organised meetings. Prima facie these do not appeal to be unlawful activities. The proceeding started against the Petitioner is under Clauses (e) and (g) of Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, but the allegations and the, materials on record do not prima facie disclose a case under Clauses (e) and (g) or Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure. Mere assertions in the police report that the Petitioner is of dangerous or criminal tendency or is suspected of having committed offences are insufficient for initiation of a proceeding under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this application is allowed. The proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure is quashed for the ends of justice.