Harbans Lal Sethi vs The State

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a revision petition against an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Simla, u/s 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On the basis of a police report indicating that the Petitioner was likely to cause a breach of the peace the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued a notice u/s 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring him to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount for keeping the peace for a period of one year. During the pendency of the proceedings the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order dated March 26, 1974, u/s 117(3) of the Code directing the Petitioner to execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties each in the like amount for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry. Against that order the Petitioner applied in revision. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that besides the police report there was no evidence on the basis of which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had made the order and, therefore, the order was bad. The learned Sessions Judge also says that when the notice u/s 112 of the Code required the Petitioner to furnish one surety only, the order u/s 117(3) should not have called for two sureties. In the circumstances the learned Sessions Judge has submitted the record of this case to this Court u/s 438 of the Code.

In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge is wrong in holding that the police report could not constitute proper material for an order u/s 117(3) of the Code. It was an interim order made in an emergency, and if the police report contained information which was credible and could be relied on, there is no reason why it could not constitute the basis of such an order. See Dulal Chandra Mondal Vs. The State, , Amir Singh (2nd Party) Vs. The State, and Gani Ganai and Ors. v. State AIR 1959 J&K 125. No further evidence is contemplated by the law as a necessary requirement before an order u/s 117(3) of the Code is made. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was satisfied from the police report that the Petitioner was likely to cause a breach of the peace, and it has not been shown by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the view taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is unreasonable having regard to the contents of the police report. In my opinion the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be endorsed.

But on the other point, I would agree with the learned Sessions Judge. The notice u/s 112 of the Code required the Petitioner to furnish one surety only and not two sureties. When the Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for two sureties by the order u/s 117(3), it does appear that the demand was excessive. No justification appears for requiring two sureties.

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed in part. The order dated march 26, 1974, of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is modified in so far that the Petitioner is required to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5, 000 with one surety in the like amount for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry.