GANDHARP SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case Gandharp Singh has been convicted under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that he is by habit a robber, housebreaker and thief and a desperate and dangerous character. The evidence of ten witnesses, who have no apparent reason for coming into the box to state false- hoods, is conclusive against him. He is alleged by them to have been concerned in dacoities and to be a terror to the neighbour-hood, and the Magistrate and Sessions Judge have accepted that evidence. The Magistrate, having regard to the fast that Gandharp Singh had previously in 1917 been convicted under this same Section 110, ordered him to furnish security in one personal band for Rs. 200 and two approved sureties each for Rs. 200 to be of good behavior for a period of three years. IN default of finding such sureties the accused was to be rigorously imprisoned for three years, unless in the meantime the sureties were forthcoming. The only matter of importance in this revision is whether or no the imprisonment should be rigorous or simple. I am of opinion that in this case it should be rigorous and, therefore, the revision of Gandharp Singh fails. This case, however, raises a point of interest because it would appear that there is, I might say, a general practice automatically to award imprisonment of a rigorous character instead of balancing the question of rigorous or simple imprisonment. Section 110 is a most necessary section in our Criminal Procedure Code, but it is essentially a preventive section and is designed to make people keep within the bounds of law by providing sureties when it is evident that they are people of criminal tendency. A failure to provide sureties involves imprisonment. As Section 110 is preventive rather than punitive, it would appear that in ordinary cases the imprisonment should be simple and indeed under Section 123, Sub-section 6, the Magistrate in each case has to exercise his discretion and decide whether on the facts of each case the imprisonment should be simple or rigorous. I have made these observations on this section because I think there may be cases in which it would be sufficient to restrain a man by keeping him in prison and ordering such imprisonment to be simple. IN the present case, however, as I have said above, I think the Magistrate s order was proper and the application for revision is rejected.