BHABENDRA KUMAR PATTNAIK Vs. CHANDI CHARAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delinquent is the petitioner in this criminal revision which arises out of proceeding under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE Officer -in -Charge of Gopalpur Police station submitted a report on 26 -4 -1985 to bind down the petitioner to keep peace in the locality where he described the opp. party as first party and the delinquent as the second party. On 6thJune, 1985, the learned Executive Magistrate passed the order directing the petitioner to appear on 21 -6 -1985 and show cause as to. why he shall not be directed to execute a bond for Rs. 500/ -with one surety for the like amount to keep peace for a period of six months. After appearance of the delinquent the proceeding continued where some of the witnesses were examined and the case was posted to 16 -1 -1986 for further enquiry by order dated 9 -1 -1986. The next day, i.e., on 10 -1 -1986, an application was filed on behalf of the opposite party stating therein that the witnesses in this case have already been examined except the Police Officers and the first party apprehends breach of peace and danger to his life and reputation from the second party and in that view, time should be extended until final disposal of the care. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed an application praying to advance the date in the interest of justice obviously because the case was posted to 16 -1 -1986. Both the petitions contain scoring through some writings on the margin. There is no indication that copies of the petitions were served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order on that date which reads as follows : 10 -1 -1986: Perused the report of the A. P. P. Heard him. The A. P. P. submits that the apprehension of breach of peace continues. Hence the proceeding is extended for a period of three months from today as the trial is in process. Put up on the date fixed. Sd./ - Illegible 10 -1 -1986 Executive Magistrate.

(3.) THERE is no dispute by either party that the proceeding would have stood terminated but for the impugned order. The basis of the special reason given in this case is the report of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and his submission in Court. On the record, there is no report of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor excepting his petition dated 10 -1 -1986 which reads as follows : 'That the first party me Tiber filed a petition to extend the period of the case. Hence it is prayed that Hon'ble Court be pleased to advance the case in the interest of justice. Sd. Illegible 10 -1 -1986 A. P. P.'