BANGALI AHIR Vs. CHATURBHUJ PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order under Section 107 read with Section 118, Criminal P.C., requiring the two petitioners to execute bonds for one thousand rupees each, with one surety in a like amount each, for keeping the peace for a period of one year. The order was passed by a first class Magistrate of Motihari, and an appeal against that order was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge and dismissed.

(2.) It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the whole proceeding under Section 107 was bad in its inception because the notice requiring them under Section 107 to show cause was defective; and the defect is said to consist in the fact that the notice does not specify any particular wrongful act that the Magistrate was satisfied was likely to be committed by the petitioners. Proceedings are liable to be quashed on such a ground, but not after the whole matter has been inquired into, unless there is a reasonable suggestion of possible prejudice, or unless the defect goes to the jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned advocate for the opposite party before me has in this connexion referred to Jai Singh V/s. Emperor (22) 64 I.C. 666, decided in this Court in 1921, the head-note of which runs as follows: The mere fact that an order under Section 112, Criminal P.C., requiring the accused to show cause why they should not be proceeded with under Section 107 of the Code, does not set forth the substances of the information received by the Magistrate, will not vitiate the proceedings if in fact it did not in any degree prejudice the accused and they had ample notice of the case made against them and ample time to produce their evidence.