BANARSI SINGH AND ORS. Vs. JANARDAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second party to a proceeding under Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as 'the Code', have preferred this application in revision against an order directing them to execute ad -interim bond under Sec. 117(3) of the Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that as there was no legal order under Sec. 112 of the Code, nor there was any inquiry under Sec. 117(1) of the Code, the order under Sec. 117(3) is illegal. According to him, unless there is a legal order under Sec. 112 of the Code, no inquiry under Sec. 117(1) can start, and unless an inquiry under Sec. 117(1) starts, no order under Sec. 117(3) can be passed. It is perfectly correct to say that in absence of an order under Sec. 112 of the Code, there can be no inquiry as contemplated by Sec. 117(1), and that the proper stage for passing an order under Sec. 117(3) comes in only when an inquiry as contemplated by Sec. 117(1) has been started. But learned counsel for the petitioners does not appear to be correct in his submission that the order under Sec. 112 suffered from such an illegality that all further steps taken in the proceeding by the Magistrate are vitiated. Nor he appears to be correct in submitting that no inquiry as contemplated by Sec. 117(1) of the Code had started in the instant case before passing of the impugned order under Sec. 117(3) of the Code.

(2.) The preliminary order under Sec. 112 of the Code drawing up the proceeding under Sec. 107 was passed in the following terms:

(3.) In the instant case, the petitioners did file show cause and in that show cause they did not make any grievance that the preliminary order in the proceeding did not set forth the substance of the information received against them or that it was vague, and, therefore, they were not in a position to file their show cause. Rather, it appears from the show cause filed by the petitioners that they knew what were the allegations against them and they denied them and attempted to meet them. It cannot be said, therefore, that they have been prejudiced in any way by not setting forth the substance of the information received by the Magistrate in the preliminary order passed under Sec. 112 of the Code. Thus this is not a case where it can be held that all steps taken in the proceeding are bad and illegal because of the aforesaid lacuna in the order passed under Sec. 112 of the Code.