LAWS(P&H)-1969-8-12

BEANT SINGH Vs. THE STATE AND OTHERS

Decided On August 26, 1969
BEANT SINGH Appellant
V/S
The State And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, has recommended that the order of the Magistrate refusing to take action under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the police was not producing witnesses resulting in unnecessary delay of the case be quashed. Beant Singh Petitioner had originally moved the Superintendent of Police, Ambala City, complaining to him that Bhagat Singh and Ors. (Respondents) were likely to commit breach of peace and that they be bound down under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Cede. There was civil litigation between the parties which resulted in a decree in a sum of Rs. 1565/ - in favour of Viran Wali wife of the Petitioner. The decree -holder took out the execution and the Petitioner accompanied the bailiff on 25th July, 1966, armed with warrants of possession, to get the property of the judgment debtor attached. It is alleged that the bailiff read over the warrant of attachment to Bhagat Singh. Manmohan Singh, Xarinder Singh and Mangal Singh are also alleged to have come there. It is stated that the Petitioner and the bailiff were assaulted by the Respondents. A case under Section 353, Indian Penal Code, was registered against the Respondents which resulted in the conviction of Manmohan Singh only who is the adopted son of Bhagat Singh judgment debtor. There was a private complaint under Section 323/504/ 506 Indian penal Code, filed by Beant Singh against Bhagat Singh and three others which ended in the discharge of the accused. In his complaint to the Superintendent of Police, the Petitioner alleged that when the case under Section 353, Indian Penal Code, was pending against Bhagat Singh and others, he was stopped at about 4.30 P.M. on 31st May, 1967, by these Respondents near Jagadhri Gate and abused and threatened with dire consequences if he continued persisting in civil and criminal cases against the Respondents. According to the version given by him, he was rescued by Har Kishan Singh, Charan Singh, etc. The local police forwarded his complaint to the Magistrate concerned for action under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate recorded the evidence of some witnesses including the Petitioner Beant Singh but it appears that the remaining witnesses, some of whom were officials did not care to give evidence and went on getting adjournments, from time to time. The learned Magistrate, as is indicated from his order of 15th February, 1968, got fed up with the conduct of the prosecution in not producing the witnesses and proceeded to discharge the Respondents. The main reason for his not binding down the Respondents was that the very purpose of the proceedings was vitiated if they were unnecessary delayed and the prosecution did not seem to be interested in pursuing the case. He, however, directed the Station House Officer to keep an eye on the Respondents and proceed under section 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, if an occasion threatening a breach of the peace arises. Beant Singh filed an application before the Sessions Judge, Ambala, which was disposed of by the Additional Sessions Judge who made the recommendation as referred to above.

(2.) I am in full agreement with the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge. It cannot be disputed that the relations between the parties were strained and the Magistrate also in his order of 15th February, 1968, discharging the Respondents, does not hold to the contrary. Proceedings under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, though in the nature of police action, are judicial proceedings where the Magistrate is called upon to judicially apply his mind to the information as laid before him and determine whether any person against whom the information has been given is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility, or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, or disturb the public tranquility. Before he passes the final order directing a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace, it is necessary for him to require the persons complained against to show cause by an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and, the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required, as envisaged in Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code. If the person, in respect of whom the preliminary order under Section 112 has been made, is present in Court, the order is read out or explained to him, or if he is absent, then his presence is secured unless dispensed with. The Magistrate is then legally duty bound to enquire into the truth of the information upon which he took the action and passed the preliminary order. The truth can be sifted by taking any evidence as may appear to the Magistrate to be necessary. It is enjoined in Section 117(2), Criminal Procedure Code, that such inquiry be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases.

(3.) I accept the recommendations of the Additional Sessions Judge, set aside the order dated 16th February, 1968, passed by the Magistrate, and direct that he should proceed with the case in accordance with law.