AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These series of petitions have been filed by way of revision against the orders passed by the respective Sub-Divisional Magistrate - cum -
Revenue Divisional Officer.
In all these matters, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed orders u/s 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing the petitioners to
execute a bond for good behaviour for a specified period. It was found that after executing the bond, these petitioners started indulging in
committing prohibition offences. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrates invoked Section 122(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code and then
passed the impugned orders directing them to be imprisoned till the expiry of the period executed in the bond. Without entering into the factual
matrix, it would suffice to decide as to whether the various orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrates concerned are in accordance with
law.
Admittedly, show cause notice was issued initially u/s 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After full-fledged inquiry, a final order was passed
directing the petitioners to execute bonds u/s 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly the petitioners executed the bonds.
Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code speaks about two aspects. They are: Execution of bonds can for keeping the peace, and execution
of bonds for maintaining good behaviour. In all these cases, bonds were admittedly executed for maintaining good behaviour, since proceedings
were initiated only u/s 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes a distinction between bonds to
be executed for keeping the peace and for maintaining good behaviour. The relevant portion of the provision is this:
If upon inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be...
A careful reading of this provision only indicates that the provision makes a distinction between the bond to be executed for keeping the peace and
the bond to be executed for maintaining good behaviour. The schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code also contains two different forms. Form
No.12 has to be used by the authorities concerned, if bond has to be executed to keep the peace, whereas Form No.13 is provided for execution
of the bond for good behaviour. Therefore, there can be no doubt that a bond can be executed either for keeping the peace or for maintaining
good behaviour. But not for both. Even if a person is asked to execute bond for proceedings initiated u/s 107 as well as u/s 110 of the Criminal
Procedure Code even then two different bonds have to be executed by him. Therefore, Section 117 makes it clear that the bond for keeping the
peace is distinct and different from the bond for maintaining good behaviour. If the proceedings are initiated u/s 107, a bond is ordered to be
executed for keeping the peace in Form No.12 and if the proceedings are initiated u/s 110, a bond for maintaining good behaviour has to be
executed in Form No.13.
Now coming to the provision contained in Section 122(1)(b), which was invoked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to imprison the petitioners, I
find that the said provision speaks only about execution of bond for keeping the peace. Section 122(1)(b) starts like this
if any person after having executed a bond without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate u/s 117, is proved, to
the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in-office to have committed breach of the bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may,
after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested or detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond...
Therefore it is made clear that Section 122(1)(b) is not attracted when the bond was executed for maintaining good behaviour. Of course, there
appears to be no provision, in case of violation of a bond executed for maintaining good behaviour except to forfeit the bonds. It is left to the
Parliament or Legislature concerned to fill up the gap, if necessary. It would suffice to say that in so far as the violations committed in breach of the
bond executed u/s 117 in the proceedings initiated u/s 110, Section 122(1)(b) is not at all attracted and therefore, the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrates concerned have to be quashed.
The reading of the affidavit filed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate - cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur exhibits his sentiments in keeping
public order. There can be no dispute that the prohibition offenders have become a menace to the society and that has to be curbed by the iron
hands of the State. But at the same time, this Court is unable to endorse an order passed without jurisdiction.
In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to set aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional
Malai. Subramanian, J.
Magistrates concerned and accordingly the revisions stand allowed. Consequently, all connected pending Crl.M.Ps are closed.