Chandgi Ram and another vs State of Haryana and others

K.P.S. Sandhu, J. (Oral)

Chandgi Ram and others have filed this revision against the order of SubDivisional Magistrate, Rewari dated 29.9.1983 which is in the following terms :

"The respondent accused in police custody are present. They were directed to furnish security for presence of the sum of Rs. 5,000/, otherwise to remain in judicial lock up. The remaining accused be summoned for 3.10.1984."

The main ground taken up by Mr. Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned District Judge, Narnaul has not complied with the provisions of section 111 of Cr.P.C. and his failure on his part vitiates proceedings. Section 111 of Cr. C.P. reads as under :

"When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 for Section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required".

Mr. Gopi Chand, to support his contention, has placed reliance on a Single Bench/authority of this Court in Shri Rajinder Singh Konner v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1973 C.L.R. 108 wherein it has been held that noncompliance of section 112 of the old Code (which now corresponds to section 111 of the new Code,) vitiates the proceedings. The learned counsel has further contended that since no overt act has been alleged in the report submitted by police, no proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. could be initiated on the same. He has in this context place reliance of a D.B. authority of this Court reported as Col Partap Singh Gill v. The State of Haryana and others, 1974 P.L.J. 11. A bare reading of the Calender submitted by the police shows that no over act has been attributed to the petitioners. The reading of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate shows that he has failed to comply with the provision of section 111 Cr.P.C. Consequently, this petition is disallowed and proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate are quashed.