BISHNU DALAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by the second party against an order of the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, confirming the order of a Magistrate 1st Class, dated January 27, 1959. The Magistrate by his order forfeited the interim bond executed by the members of the 2nd party and issued distress warrants against them and directed the police to take them into custody for avoiding any breach of the peace.

(2.) The facts are rather short and simple. The Magistrate took cognizance of a case under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present petitioners and issued notice under section 112 on August 8, 1958. By that order the Magistrate required the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds of Rs. 100/- each with sureties for the like amount for a period of one year for keeping the peace. The petitioners appeared and showed cause on August 23, 1958. Subsequently on September 26, 1958 the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Cuttack called upon the petitioners to execute interim bonds for Rs. 100/- each with one surety of the like amount to keep peaee during the pendency of the enquiry under Sub-section (3) of Section 117 of the Cr. P.C. The petitioners on September 19, 1958 had already shown cause against the order for execution of the interim bond and on September 29 they furnished the interim bonds to the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The Police submitted another report against the petitioners before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Cuttack and requested him to forfeit the interim bonds since the petitioners had violated the terms of the said interim bond. The allegations were that between 26-7-58 and 4-8-58 the petitioner had committed six overt acts. The petitioners also filed an application that the 1st party should also be bound down. It appears that no orders have yet been passed on that petition. I am not, however, concerned with that application in the present proceedings. The Magistrate it appears examined two witnesses on January 12, 1959 and they were cross-examined by the petitioners. In another application the petitioners wanted the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lalbag Police Station to be examined which the Magistrate refused. Thereafter it is stated that the petitioners wanted to adduce rebutting evidence to displace the evidence given on behalf of the first party "n the ground that of the two witnesses examined Sankarsan Mohanty had categorically admitted that he was a professional witness for the Lalbag Police and the other witness Sudani Behcra also admitted that he was an interested person under the influence of the first party. In spite of these allegations, the Magistrate did not allow the petitioners to examine any witness on their behalf. Furthermore, the Magistrate was informed that the petitioners intend to file an application under Section 526(8) Cr. P. Code. But in spite of this information, the Magistrate, at appears, proceeded with the case and eventually passed the order on January 27, 1959, forfeiting the bonds and issued distress warrants against them and directed the Police to take them into the custody. Against this order of the Magistrate the petitioners carried an appeal which was heard by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, who by his order dated March 6, 1959, confirmed the order passed by the Magistrate on the ground that the order was lawful and that there was no illegality committed by the Magistrate. Against this order the present application has been filed in tris Court.

(3.) Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the order of the Magistrate is clearly wrong in law since he has violated the provisions of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 514 lays down the procedure for forfeiture of the bond and it states: