MANGI LAL & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Advani learned counsel for Mangi Lal and others appearing under the Legal Aid Programme and Mr. S.S. Bhandawat for the State.

(2.) This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Partabgarh, camp Chittorgarh, with a recommendation that the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh, on 8-11-1973, under S. 112, Cr. P. C. in a proceeding under S. 107, old Cr. P.C. may be quashed on the ground that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate omitted to set forth in his impugned order in writing the substance of the information on which he purported to proceed against Mangi Lal and others for prevention of breach of the peace.

(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:- The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chittorgarh, received an information from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Chittorgarh, that there are two factions or parties in the labourers of Birla Cement Factory, Chittorgarh, and that quarrels ensue frequently between them. On 30-10-1973, Bhagwati Lal presented an application under S. 107/151, old Cr. P.C. against Mangi Lal and several other persons that the labourers were likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. An inquiry was made into the application by the Station House Officer and it was found that there was danger of breach of the peace from the side of the accused Mangi Lal and others. These persons picked-up quarrels with Rampal on 22-7-1973 and again on 23-7-1973 and that criminal cases under sections 452/147 and 323, IPC. were registered and investigation was made. As the Station House Officer apprehended breach of the peace, he requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for taking preventive measures against Mangi Lal and his associates. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was of opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding under S. 107, Cr. P.C. He, therefore, thought it necessary to require Mangi Lal and others to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace. He, therefore, made an order in writing on 8-11-1973, setting forth the amount of the bond to be executed and the term for which it was to be executed and the number of the sureties required. The order passed by him is set out below:-