RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by four petitioners. By a judgment and order, dated the 30th May, 1950, the Subdivisional Magistrate of Madhipura directed them, under Sections 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to execute a bond of Rs. 4,000/- each with four sureties of Rs. 1,000/- each to be of good behaviour for a period of three years in a proceeding under Section 110, Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), of the Code drawn up against them. On a reference made to the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur for the confirmation of that order, the matter was heard by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Madhipura, who confirmed the order as against the petitioner Raghunath Singh in respect of Clauses (a), (d) and (f) only but maintained the amount of the bond to be executed by him with the four sureties as directed by the Subdivisional Magistrate; and, with regard to the rest of the petitioners, he confirmed the order in respect of Clauses (a) and (d) only, and reduced the amount of bond to be executed by them to Rs. 1,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 500/- each.

(2.) The facts relevant to the argument advanced in support of this application are these : On the 9th December, 1949, the Sub-Inspector of Murliganj Police Station submitted four separate reports for taking action under Sections HO, Criminal Procedure Code, against the four petitioners. One report was against the peti-.tioner Raghunath Singh of village Kumarkhat; another was against the petitioner Sheikh Yusuf of village Mangalwara; the third was against the petitioner Gonar Mian also of village Mangalwara; and the fourth was against the petitioner Sheikh Akloo of village Sarhad. As a result, on the 24th January, 1950, the Subdivisional Magistrate ordered for the drawing up of proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and directed the petitioners to appear and show cause why they will not be ordered to execute bonds of Rs. 4,000/- each with four sureties of Rs. 1,000/- each to be of good behaviour for a period of three years. It appears that, consequent upon this order, three notices were sent under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code; one to Raghunath Singh of village Kumarkhat, another to Gonar Mian and Sheikh Yusuf together as both are of village Mangalwara, and the third to Sheikh Akloo of village Sarhad. The proceedings appear to have been kept separately against the three sets of petitioners as shown above, and, for one reason or another, the proceedings could not commence till the 7th March, 1950. On the date, the Court. Sub-Inspector, on behalf of the prosecution, filed the following petition before the Subdivisional Magistrate :

(3.) The first point taken in support of this application was that the learned Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Sections 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with the result that the entire proceeding must be held to be bad in law and void. Section 112 is as follows :