High CourtsSingle Bench(1999) 09 KAR CK 0067

Sri. K.A. Ganganna and Others vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 23 September 1999 · Citation: (2002) 2 KCCR 1023

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R. Bannurmath, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Petition No. 668 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 355 words

S.R. Bannurmath, J.—As the petition arises under the order passed u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure, Sri S.S. Koti, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, is directed to take notice and appear for the Respondent who acknowledges the receipt of the copy of the petition.

2.

Heard both the learned Counsel.

3.

On a report from Jalahalli Police and an affidavit filed by the Police Inspector, the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate has passed the impugned order directing the Petitioners to execute a bond for a period of 6 months for maintaining good behaviour. A bare perusal of the order shows that there is totally non application of mind. In order to pass an order even preliminary under Sections 107 and 111 Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate is required to apply his mind independently to the facts as brought out before him and cannot merely rely upon the report of the police. The only ground for exercising this jurisdiction as it appears from the impugned order is that there is report of the Sub-Inspector that the Petitioners are involved in many cases. No particulars of the cases and as to the result is forthcoming in the impugned order. This shows totally non-application of mind and mere reliance upon the report by the learned Magistrate. Further under proviso to Section 111 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Taluka Executive Magistrate cannot ask for execution of a bond for keeping good bahaviour which is totally impermissible. Since I find that the impugned order is passed contrary to the mandatory provision of Section 107 Code of Criminal Procedure, and without application of mind and subjective satisfaction, the same is liable to be set aside.

4.

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.9.1999 passed by the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate, Bangalore, in MAGCAR.11 of 1999-2000 is set aside. However, it is made clear that in future if any situation requires in respect breach of peace in the area, it is open for the learned Taluka Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings after following the requirement of law as provided u/s 111 Code of Criminal Procedure.