BAIRAGI CHARAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned orders were passed under S.107, Cri.P.C. ('Code' for short). Mr. Pasayat, appearing for the petitioners strenuously urged that the learned Executive Magistrate did not comply with the requirements of S.111 of the Code and passed the impugned orders mechanically without application of judicial mind. Therefore, they are liable to be quashed.

(2.) In the first case there was allegation of dispute between a group of students of the Utkal University Vani Vihar and a group of persons of village Patia nearby. In the second case the alleged dispute centered round cutting of some mango trees of the same village. The first party was Raja Krushna Chandra Deb and the members of the second party were a group of villagers.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the impugned orders, as well as, the first information reports lodged by the Police Officers of Saheednagar Police Station. It would appear therefrom that there were specific incidents after the occurrence of which there was apprehension of breach of peace in the locality. But curiously enough the impugned orders do not reflect the substance of the informations which were supplied to the Executive Magistrate and which the latter received before acting under S.107 of the Code. S.111 makes it imperative for the Executive Magistrate to set forth the substance of the information received before passing an order under S.107 of the Code. The intendment of the legislature is that before any action is taken against a person to bind him down and restrict his freedom under the provisions of S.107 of the Code, the Executive Magistrate must apply his judicial mind and should not pass an order mechanically simply because he has received an information from a police officer. In this connection reference may be made to a Division Bench case of this Court reported in AIR 1970 Orissa 184, Mandalapu Sundar Narayan v. V.V. Chenulu, in which on the subject of discussion the following conclusion was reached :-