Rafatulla Pramanik vs Rajek Sardar and Another

Jack, J.—In both these cases rules were issued to show cause why the order u/s 106, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. It is urged for the petitioner that since the conviction was only u/s 379, I.P.C., in both the cases the orders u/s 106 are improper inasmuch as an offence u/s 479 does not involve any breach of the peace. There are a number of rulings as regards what amounts to an offence involving a breach of the peace as referred to in Section 106, Criminal P.C. I do not think it necessary to go into details of these cases. It appears to me that the trend of these rulings shows that unless the offence is one which necessarily involves a breach of the peace there must be an express finding by the Court that the offence did in fact involve as breach of the peace and I find that in both these cases there is such a finding.

In Case No. 448 the appellate Court found that the accused formed an unlawful assembly no doubt as the number was 50 or 60 men although no charge was framed against the accused under this section. The offence committed was accompanied by force and it certainly involves a breach of the peace. In Case No 449 the finding of the appellate Court was also that the offence committed involved a breach of the peace and the learned District Magistrate remarked that as the appellant did not desist from the wrongful act, even after his conviction in the case, he considered it necessary that the accused should be bound down to keep the peace. In these circumstances, I think that the orders u/s 106, Criminal P.C., in both these cases are justified according to law. The rules are therefore discharged.