Rati Ram and Others vs State of U.P.

R.P. Shukla, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 1-8-86 passed by the Sessions Judge Mathura in Criminal appeal No. 33 of 1986. Rati Ram and Ors. v. State of U.P. u/s 107/116 Code of Criminal Procedure, P.S. Shergarh, dismissing the appeal of the revisionists summarily, arising out of the order of S.D.M. Chhatta Distt. Mathura dated 8-7-1986 in case No. 111/552/lx/86 State v. Rati Ram and ors. binding down the revisionists u/s 117 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned Counsel for the State accepted notice and argued at some length.

Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chhatta District Mathura initiated proceedings u/s 107/116 Code of Criminal Procedure against the applicants, being satisfied on a police report and he passed orders u/s 111 Code of Criminal Procedure on 18-12-1985 requiring the revisionists to show cause as to why they should not be bound down to execute bond for keeping peace. On 8-7-1986 the Magistrate bound down the revisionists ordering them to file personal bond of Rs. 2000/- and sureties in the like amount to keep peace for a year. This order has obviously been passed u/s 117 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 117 runs, if upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly:

Provided that:

(a) No person shall be ordered to give security of a nature different from or of an amount larger than, or for a period larger than, that specified in the order made u/s 111.

(b) The amount of every bond shall be fixed with due regard to the Circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive.

(c) When the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made is a minor, the bond shall be executed only by his sureties.

According to Section 116(3) order u/s 117 can be passed only after commencement and before the completion of the inquiry under Sub-clause (i) if the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility or commission of any offence or for public safety. This order u/s 117 Code of Criminal Procedure can not be passed only on the police report. There ought to be some evidence before the Magistrate after the commencement and before completion of the inquiry envisaged u/s 116(i) Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate has bound down the applicants in absence of such evidence. Their appeal has been summarily dismissed by the Sessions Judge without there being any speaking order.

In the circumstances the order of the Magistrate binding down applicants u/s 117 Code of Criminal Procedure can not be sustained. The revision is therefore allowed. The order dated 1-8-1986 passed by the Sessions Judge and the order dated 8-7-1986 passed by the Magistrate are hereby set aside.