STATE Vs. SHEIKH WAHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A proceeding under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up against six persons, and the enquirty was made by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Madhubani. The learned Magistrate, on the 2nd Juno 1953, passed an order under Clauses (a), (d) and (f) of Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and exercising his powers under Section 118 (1) of that Code, he directed that four of those men would execute a bond of Rs. 1,000 each with two sureties of Rs. 500 each to be of good behaviour for a period of two years, and in default, they would undergo rigorous imprisonment for the some period. The remaining two were discharged under Section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Two of the four, who were ordered to execute bonds, executed the bonds, but the other two did not do so, and they were sent to jail. It appears that thereafter two appeals were filed to the Sessions Court at Darbhanga, one by the two who had executed the bonds and who are respondents before us and the other by the other two who, in default of the execution of the bonds, were sent to jail. The two appeals were beard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Darbhanga together, and by his order dated the 23rd September 1953, he allowed both the appeals.

(3.) It will appear from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he allowed the appeals on a point of law holding that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate had committed, to use his own words, a serious blunder inasmuch as the Magistrate had not applied his mind to the provisions of Section 123 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is wholly erroneous. He has held that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had no power to call upon the appellants to give security for a period exceeding one year, and that if the learned Magistrate desired that he should call upon them to give security for a period exceeding one year, the procedure was that he should have made a reference to the Sessions Judge and should have issued a warrant directing the appellants to be detained in prison pending the orders of the Sessions Judge. Since the Subdivisional Magistrate had not done so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held that he had no jurisdiction to pass the order which he did.