A.C. Thomas and 14 Others vs The State by Inspector of Police, Tisiyanvillai

Pratap Singh, J.—Counter petitioners in M.C. No. 30/90 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi,

have filed this petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records in the said case and quash the same.

Short facts are: Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, has passed an order under S. 111, Cr.P.C calling upon the

petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be directed to execute bond for Rs. 1,000/- each with one surety for a like sum under S. 111,

Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that S. 111 Cr.P.C. is common for acting under Ss.107, 108 and 109 Cr.P.C.

and the impugned order does not disclose under what particular provision of Cr.P.C. the learned Sub-Collector wants to act while passing the

impugned order. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, I find that the learned Executive Magistrate has not referred to the provision of

Cr.P.C. under which he proposes to act while passing the impugned order under S. 111 Cr.P.C. That would clearly show that there is total non-

application of mind and so on that ground this order is liable to be set aside. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon Jeyavelu v. Inspector of

Police (1988 L.W. (Crl.) 38) . With respect, I am of the same view of Justice Padmini Jesudurai.

In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the order passed in M.C. No. 30/90 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-

Collector, Cheranmahadevi is hereby quashed.