KHAYALI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22nd July '82, passed by the SDM, Vallabh Nagar, in a proceeding u/Ss. 107 and 116, Cr. P.C.

(2.) This case is of very peculiar circumstances where the persons of legal profession, have been entangled. The petitioners are respectable persons, and petitioner No. 1 is an advocate of good reputation. These petitioners were arrested by the SHO on 22nd July '82 in village Kanod. They were handcuffed by the police and paraded in the entire town. While arresting them, they were not told under what law and authority, they were being arrested. They were then taken in an open truck under handcuff, to Vallabh Nagar and produced before the SDM, where they came to know that a case u/s. 107, Cr. P.C. was registered against them. It is alleged that the SDM had asked them that he would make them alright. They were asked by him to furnish one personal and one surety bond of Rs. 50,000/- each. Upon the petitioner not furnishing such personal and surety bonds, they were sent to Sub Jail Mavli. They then applied for certified copies of the proceedings taken against them. From the copy of the order dated 21st July, '82, it is found that a complaint was submitted by Bansilal and others, before the SHO, PS Kanod, stating therein that on 17th July, '82, the SDM had called them and asked about construction of a Dharamshala in village Kanod. They expressed their resentment over the said construction and also stated that the Dharamsala was being constructed by the prominent persons of the town and that those prominent persons had threatened them that they would be put to ashes and their houses would be set on dynamites. The SHO stated in the report that the Dharamsala was being constructed on the government land and the work did not stop, in spite of the notice given to them, by the Government; and in the opinion of the SHO, there were chances of the breach of peace in the town. The SDM after satisfying himself with the report of the SHO, agreed that there were chances of breach of peace in the town, and therefore, he ordered that the petitioners be arrested immediately under the provisions of S.113, Cr. P.C.

(3.) These were the circumstances in which the proceedings in this case were initiated.