GURDIAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SO far as the merits go, there is no substance in the petition. I will, however, deal with the objection of the learned Counsel of the Petitioner concerning the jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate to make the order under revision. The Magistrate made the following operative order under Section 123, Criminal P.C. As a result of the above discussion I come to the conclusion that Gurdial Singh accused must be bound down under Section 110, Clause (f), Criminal P.C.I. therefore, direct Gurdial Singh S/o Gurmakh Singh Jat resident of Balian to execute a personal bond for Rs. 5,000/ - with two sureties for being of good behaviour for a period of three years with effect from today, in default of which he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years or for such time as he executes the personal bond or furnishes the security. Announced.

(2.) IT is contended that in view of the express provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 123, Criminal P.C. the Magistrate could not have made the order of the Petitioner's detention in prison for three years, and that since he has exceeded his jurisdiction, his order being ultra vires, should be quashed. Sub -section (2) of Section 123, Criminal P.C. runs as follows: When such person has been ordered by a Magistrate to give security for a period exceeding one year, such Magistrate shall if such person does not give such security as aforesaid, issue a warrant directing him to be detained in prison pending the orders of the Sessions Judge or, if such Magistrate is a Presidency Magistrate, pending the orders of the High Court; and the proceedings shall be laid, as soon as conveniently may be, before such Court.

(3.) OBVIOUSLY , therefore, a reference to the Sessions Judge would have become necessary only if the accused had failed to give the required security. The Sub -section has no application where there is no failure in compliance with the Magistrate's order requiring security. If the direction regarding furnishing of security for three years is immediately complied with, there is no default & the question of the detention of the defaulter in prison for any period cannot arise. No reference to the Sessions Judge in that case can at all be called for. Sub -section (2) of Section 123, Criminal P.C. makes a reference to the Sessions Judge imperative only when the accused fails to give the security asked for. In the case under examination, as soon as the Magistrate made the order in question, the accused furnished the necessary security. The objection raised by the learned Counsel has, therefore, no force. Dismissed.