LOKANATH DAS AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners were directed to keep the peace under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure and to execute individual bonds with a surety of Rs. 300/ - each, to keep the peace for a period of six months, by an order of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Nilgiri on 28.3.1954 and the appeal filed by the Petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Petitioner No. 1, Lokanath Das, it is stated, belongs to the communist party and No. 1 of the first party belongs to the congress party. They contested the previous elections to the local Gram Panchayat. On 31 -5 -1954, a report was sent by the police to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate. In that report of the police, there is absolutely nothing stated about the wrongful acts committed by the Petitioners and that there is any apprehension of imminent breach of the peace. On receipt of the same report, the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Balasore, passed an order on 28 -6 -1954 to the effect: "P.R. under Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure received. Call on the second party to show cause why they should not be bound down under Section 107 by 13 -7 -1954." The notice issued to the Petitioners under Section 112 Code of Criminal Procedure is very vague and is only to the effect that according to the police report their movements may lead to the breach of the peace and therefore they are to show cause why proceedings under Section 107 should not be launched against them. In showing cause the Petitioners stated in their counter that the notice served upon them does not show any particulars of their movements and is very vague. The Petitioners also contended that they had no opportunity to adduce evidence.

(2.) THOUGH toe Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge held that the evidence of the first party is interested evidence yet they directed that the Petitioners should execute individual bonds of Rs. 300/ - each. The Magistrate in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment held, "No doubt as the cross -examination of the P.Ws. shows the P.Ws. are not disinterested witnesses and are really the persons who are directly affected by the actions of the second party and that there is also political rivalry between them. Unfortunately their testimony is also not as clear as it should be regarding the particular actions time and place of the various incidents deposed to and this is probably due to the lack of thoroughness of the -prosecuting staff who conducted the prosecution, There is also no sufficient corroboration on the facts of various incidents", but he passed the order saying "Nevertheless, considering the back ground and circumstances of the case and the evidence recorded on the whole I find sufficient material which necessitates to take steps against the second party, and bind them down for keeping peace for a particular period. "In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge also observed", "May be the main P.Ws. belong to one party and as such are partisan witnesses, but the role that it is unsafe to rely upon such evidence cannot be extended to such cases as these."

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge held that it is no doubt true that the preliminary order does not disclose the grounds on which the breach of peace was apprehended but he did not accept the contentions of the Appellants before him on the ground that in two cases reported, in Sanatan Baliarsingh v. State, 19 C.L.T. 370 and Raghunath Singh v. State : A.I.R. 1953 Pat 1, it was held that the order for that reason could not be held to be illegal and that unless serious prejudice is shown on account of the vagueness of the order, it does not vitiate the proceedings. Mr. Rath contends that the Petitioners were greatly prejudiced on account of the vague order issued by the Magistrate and that in the said order there were no facts to indicate that the Magistrate either considered the report before him or in fact, stated the grounds on which there is an apprehension of breach of the peace. Under such circumstances, Mr. Rath contends that the order is illegal and in support of his contention he relied upon the decision in Birdhaj Roy v. State : A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 491. In that case, K.C. Das Gupta and Debabrata Mukherjee, JJ. observed