NASIR AHMAD Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Abdul Rauf and certain other persona have applied in revision for the setting aside of two orders under Section 118 of the Criminal P. C., that they should furnish security to keep the peace. What happened was that upon a report of the police the Magistrate, on that information, issued notices to these persons to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds without sureties for keeping the peace for a certain period. On the 28 of October, Abdul Rauf appeared in the Court of the Magistrate and stated "machalka dena chahta hun," i.e., he is desirous of giving a bond. The Court thereupon ordered that if he was so desirous should file the bond; and on the 29 of October he filed the bond. On the 12 of November, the other applicants desired that they should be permitted to enter into personal bonds. They made this statement, as is apparent from the record, after the Court had written the words "P.W.1," presumably in preparation of recording the statement of the first prosecution witness.

(2.) As these applicants expressed their willingness to enter into personal bonds no evidence was recorded; they were allowed to enter into personal bonds for keeping the peace for one year on the same day, the 12 of November 1926. The appeals of these applicants to the Sessions Judge were dismissed, and they have now come here in revision; The learned Counsel, who put before me all the case law on the subject, argued that under Section 118, an order to execute a bond may be passed only, when upon enquiry it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made shall execute a bond. The enquiry ordered under Section 118 is "such inquiry" a repetition of the words used in Section 117(2), Such inquiry, according to Section 117(2), shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable where the order requires security for keeping the peace in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases.

(3.) The procedure as to the trial of summons-cases is laid down in Chapter XX of the Criminal P. C.. Under Section 242, when the accused appears, the Magistrate has to tell him the particulars of the " offence of which be is accused and ask if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted. All this was done in the present case by the issue of the notice to Abdul Rauf, and in the case of the others, when they appeared before the Court, and the Court made preparation for recording the evidence for the prosecution. Then, under Section 243, if the accused admits that he his committed the offence of which he is accused, his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him; and if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict him accordingly. In the present case statements of, the applicants were recorded as far as possible in their own words. In one case, on the order sheet, and in the other case, by the Magistrate himself on 12 of November. The note of the Magistrate is: "At this stage the accused" (that is those other than Abdul Rauf) pray that they may be allowed to enter into personal bonds for Rs. 500 each without sureties, for keeping the peace for a period of one year.