JAGUJI RAI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGNJI Rai and Inderjit Rai have been bound over to keep the peace for a year. They are to furnish each of them a reliable surety for Rs. 100 and to execute a personal bond in the same amount for this purpose. They were bound over by a Magistrate of the first class of Azamgarh, They do not appear to have gone to the District Magistrate and asked him to cancel this bond, as they might have done under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a person bound over to keep the peace does not adopt this procedure, I always have considerable doubt as to his general reputation in the district, and it is open to the applicants at any time hereafter to satisfy the District Magistrate that there is no necessity any longer for this bond being kept in existence. They have come to this Court with the contention (1) that the evidence on the record does not justify an order under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (2) that if they had committed a substantive offence as alleged by some of the witnesses for the prosecution, the proper procedure against them would be to proceed against them for the said offences and not to proceed under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Counsel for the applicants took exception to the notice which had been issued to them under Section 112 of the Code. Now Section 112 has to be read along with Section 107. Section 107 lays down that whenever a Magistrate of the first class is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or to disturb the public tranquillity, or to do any wrongful act which may occasion a breach of the peace, or disturb the public tranquillity, he may require that person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond. As 1 read this section, there may be cases in which a Magistrate of the first class is merely informed that a person is likely to disturb the public tranquillity without any information being given ar to his intent to do wrongful acts. The Magistrate is responsible for the peace of the district. He acts upon this information and he is required to set forth in writing the substance of the information received. In this case we are not told that the Magistrate has received any information of definite acts intended Apparently from the information he received he was satisfied that the persons concerning whom the information had been given were likely to commit some act which might occasion a breach of the peace. The reason given for this probability was that they were on terms of enmity with each other. Where the Magistrate can go into further particulars, he should certainly go into them. But it may well be that all the information he receives is that there will be a breach of the public peace, and if he considers that information to come from a reliable source, he has jurisdiction to make the order required by Section 112 Anyhow in the present case the matter has gone far beyond the stage of the order under Section 112. Certain information was given. The order calling upon the applicants to show cause was duly communicated to them. They questioned the reliability of the information. Evidence was offered and recorded at considerable length. Some of it is hearsay evidence. Some of it is evidence of actual acts, not of a peaceful nature, committed in the past. Some of it is words or expressions which, if true, point to the fact that a breach of the peace would be a probable result unless soma strong hand was put upon the persons in question. The evidence of the two Chaukidars, Sheoraj Ahir and Chiraghan, was read to me at full length, and I have glanced at the other evidence given in the case. A perusal of that evidence certainly leaves an impression upon my mind that an idea prevailed in Dechatta that a breach of the peace would take place. I have also glanced through the evidence given to rebut the evidence for the prosecution. It is of a very vague description and some of the witnesses in cross-examination had to admit that they very seldom came to Dechatta, and one who said that no quarrel had taken place had also to confess that he had not been in the village for the last two years. It is not said that the terms are too severe 1 see no reason for interfering and dismiss the application.