In Re: Balian

Horwill, J.—The First Class Bench Magistrates, Negapatam,. convicted one Balian u/s 3 (12) of the Madras Town Nuisances Act and

sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 and further bound him over u/s 106, Criminal Procedure Code, for six months.

The case has been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge of East Tanjore on the ground that the judgment of the Bench Court does not

disclose any reason for the order binding over the accused to keep the peace. The accused was charged with causing disturbance by using abusive

language and by behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner. Prima facie, behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner amounts to a breach of the

peace, and as the Bench of Magistrates accepted the evidence and found the accused guilty of behaving in a riotous and disorderly manner, I do

not see why one should doubt that the accused committed a breach of the peace.

Newsam, J., in Appachi Goundan, In re (1937) Mad. Cri. C. 316 seemed to be of the opinion that an offence u/s 3(12) of the Town Nuisances

Act would not involve a breach of the peace; but I do not think that he intended to lay down a general principle that no offence punishable u/s

3(12) of the Town Nuisances Act would involve a breach of the peace. If he did, it would be in direct opposition to the finding of a Bench of this

Court in District Magistrate of Coimbatore v. Dasappa Naicken (1933) M.W.N. 548.

I am however of opinion that it is ordinarily objectionable, when the accused is convicted only of some petty offence under the Town Nuisances

Act, that he should also be bound over for a considerable time u/s 106; for this binding over would involve a far more serious punishment than the

main sentence. Those guilty of disorderly and riotous conduct are usually poor men who may not be able to find security, in which case they would

be liable to be imprisoned for a substantial period, although the maximum punishment awarded u/s 3(12), Town Nuisances Act, is only one

month''s rigorous imprisonment. On the other hand, binding over an accused for only two or three months would not serve the purpose for which

the order was passed. Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, should therefore be very sparingly invoked where the offence committed is a petty

one.

However, I do not know what public policy lies behind the order of the Bench Court, and as long as this Court has no reason to believe that

Bench Courts are abusing their powers to bind over accused u/s 106, Criminal Procedure Code, this Court will not readily interfere. I do not

therefore find'' sufficient reason for cancelling the order calling upon the accused to find security for keeping the peace for a period of six months.

The reference is accordingly returned.