O.P. Ramaswami Gounder and Others vs Sub-Inspector of Police, Anamalai

Suryamurthy, J.—This is a petition to send for the records in M.C. No. 4 of 1978 A-l, on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Pollachi, and quash the proceedings therein.

The proceedings in the said M,C. under S. 107, Crl. P.C. have been initiated by the Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate,

Pollachi, at the instance of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anamalai against the petitioners herein, and a preliminary order under S. 107. Crl. P.C.

has been passed and served on the petitioners. The order is to the following effect:

Whereas Intimation has been received from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Anamalai, that you, the counter petitioners residing at the place noted

against such in Pollachi taluk situated within the local limits of my jurisdiction have been indulging in acts of violence and likely to commit breach of

peace and disturb the public tranquility is apprehended, you, the counter-petitioners are directed to appear before me in person on 26th June,

1978 at 11 A.M. at Revenue Divisional Officer''s Office. Pollachi and show cause why you should not be ordered under S. 107, Crl. P.C. to

execute a bond for Rs. 2,000/- with two sureties for a like sum for keeping the peace for a period of one year.

No Order under S. 111, Crl. P.C. has been passed and served on the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that there was any

information before the learned Magistrate, which was sufficient to convince him that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace. No facts

have been set out in his order by the learned Magistrate, which would justify my coming to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate was rightly

satisfied that there was a likelihood of the breach of the peace; In Bahadur Patnatk v. Emperor 1933 M.W.N. 875 Burn, J"" has observed in

considering a preliminary order passed under S. 112, Crl. P.C. (which was in force at that time) that

The Magistrate who draws up the order should extract and state plainly the facts which In his opinion will, if established by evidence, necessitate

the taking of security from the counter-petitioners.

Again in Santhanaramoswaml v. Emperor 1937 M.W.N. 189 King J., observed that

The information given In the order under S. 112 Crl. P.C. is not sufficiently detailed to satisfy the legal requirements of an order under that section.

Neither time, nor place, nor any indication of the identity of the persons alleged to have been threatened has been given.

The learned Judge, therefore, quashed the proceedings. The order under S. 107, Crl. P.C. -served on the petitioners herein is similar to the order

referred to by King, J., in the decision cited above.

In K.V. Shanmugham v. State, (Inspector of Police, Polladam) 1978 L.W.Crl. 130 Natarajan, J., has held that a notice under S. 111, Crl. P.C.

bas to satisfy a double test and that

The first is that the notice must furnish all the information which Is laid against a person or persons, and secondly, before issuing a notice, the

Magistrate has to satisfy himself that the situation calls for the issuing of a show cause order.

The learned Judge has again observed that-

A conspectus of the several sections, makes It abundantly clear that even at the outset a comprehensive order has to be passed and that order

should contain all the details of the information laid against a person or persons. The reason for the Legislature having given such a direction is not

far to seek. Anyone, who is directed by an order under S. 111 to appear in Court and show cause why proceedings should not be taken against

him, should know what is the information laid against him and what sort of repudiation he should make.

Judged by this standard, the order purporting to be an order under S. 107, Crl. P.C. passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not

maintainable.

Again, there is nothing on record to show that the learned Magistrate perused the information received by him against the petitioners herein

before issuing the notice; In fact, there is nothing to Indicate that he had any information at all before him, though the learned Public Prosecutor

now says that there was such information. The petitioners are entitled to know what case they have to meet before they can be asked to enter their

defence. No details have been given by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in what purports to be an order under S. 107, Crl. P.C. In the

circumstances this petition is allowed and the proceedings in M.C. No. 4/7SA-1 on the file of the Court of the Revenue Divisional Officer-Cum-

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pollachi are quashed.