RAJENDRA PRASAD SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner bas prayed for quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to asthe 'Code') by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Dharamgarh.

(2.) THE Officer -in -charge, Junagarh Police Station, submitted a report under Non -F. I. R. No. 36 of 1982 against the petitioner alleging that he was a 'Goonda' and rowdy element and his movement in public at large was dangerous to the community and he being desperate and hazardous element of the, community, should be bound down under Section 110 of the Code. On perusal of the said report, the learned Magistrate was also satisfied as to the existence of the pre -conditions for initiating and proceeding under Sec 110 of the Code and, therefore, directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be bound down for a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. In this revision, the petitioner challenges the said order of the learned Magistrate.

(3.) THE provision contained in Section. 110 of the code is one of the preventive measure and the Magistrate is required to take recourse to the said provision to afford protection to the public against repetition of crimes in which the safety of property is menaced as well as the security of person is jeopardised It authorises the Magistrate to take sufficient security for good behaviour of the deliquent only for the perpose of security future good behaviour. This provision is not intended to afford the police as a means of keeping the suspected person under detention unit they are able to work out a case against Section 110 is intended to deal with person who cannot readily be brought under. The ordinary law of the land and who for some special reasons. cannot be convicted Wider the Penal Code in respect of the offences said to have been committed by him There cannot be any manner of doubt that the power given, by the said section should be exercised sparingly and' with much care and caution by the Magistrate and only in those cases where the evidence is very clear and precise. The Magistrate should be cautious in making sure that the provisions intended for securing the peace of the community are not utilised for taking private vengeance. No prudent Magistrate would consider to take action under Section. 110 of the Code unless sufficient informations are there before him which would give 'substantial detail's about the person concerned. The Magistrate's satisfaction must be based on specific informations and not on the language used in the police report quoting the provisions of the different clauses of Section 110 of the Code. The show -cause notice which has been issued by the learned Magistrate and which has been appended to this revision petition and the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21.7.1982 clearly indicate that the learned Magistrate has merely used the language found in the different clauses of Section 110 of the Code. Some of the allegations made in the F. I. R. do hot really relate to any of the clauses mentioned in Section 110. of the Code, e.g. the allegations in paragraph 1 to the effect that the delinquent became a vagabond without any work and turned to a 'Dada' of the town and has sufficient money to spend luxuriously without any work and though he has got some engagement on contract business, he does not case for the profession are all irrelevant materials for the purpose of taking action under Section. 110 of the Code. Similarly, the assertion in paragraph 2 of the F I. R. to the effect that be secretly used to drink foreign liquor with his associate Ganeshram Sharma and others, cannot be construed to be an ingredient satisfying any of the clauses of Section. 110 of the Code. In paragraphs of the F. I. R certain instances of some criminal cases against the petitioner have been enumerated, but it is stated that in none of, cases the petitioner has been enumerated, but it is Mr. Mohanty appearing for the petitioner submits that in one of those cases, the petitioner has been already acquitted. The substratum of the allegations made in the F. I. R. is that the petitioner is of rowdy nature arid moves about in the town as a 'Dada' These allegation in my opinion, would not attract the provisions of Section 110 of the Code. The learned Magistrate has obviously come to the opinion that clause (g) of Section 110 is attracted, inasmuch as in the impugned order he has observed.