Joginder Singh vs The State of Punjab

Shamsher Bahadur, J.—Joginder Singh being aggrieved by the appellate order of the Sessions Judge affirming the order of the Magistrate 1st Class, Muktsar, binding him u/s 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has come to this Court in revision.

All that has been deposed against the petitioner is that he invariably gets drunk and starts abusing the residents of the village. One witness said that he had been raising changers. He has previously been prosecuted in certain cases but he has always been acquitted. There is no evidence on the record to show that he is a previous convict. There is only one witness who said that the petitioner struck a person with a dang and although a report is said to have been made about this occurrence it has not been brought on record and no proof exists that the petitioner had ever given a beating to any person. All that can be reasonably deduced from the evidence produced by the prosecution is that the petitioner is some kind of a trouble-shooter and a source of annoyance to others as he picks up easy quarrel when he is drunk.

The question which arises for determination is whether such a person could be dealt with under clause (f) of section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? u/s 110, a person may be ordered to execute a bond with sureties for his good behaviour if he:

(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or

(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or

(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves....

(d) habitually commits or attempts to commit... the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code....or

(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the com mission of, offences involving a beach of the peace, or

(f) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community.

Admittedly, the case of the petitioner does not fall under clauses (a) to (e) No evidence has been led to show that he has committed any of the offences mentioned in clauses (a) to (e). It is well to mention that under clauses (a) to (e) be has to be a habitual offender before preventive action u/s 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be resorted to. Clauses (a) to (e) deal with a person who had in the past committed serious crime or is an habitual offender. Clause (f) has to be read ejusdem genera and cannot possibly apply to a person who in a mood of drunkenness is inclined to give offence to other persons but has not actually been proved to have made good his threat to commit an offence.

So far as it is possible to gather from evidence, the petitioner has never been convicted of any offence. There is stray evidence to show that he has been a source of irritation to some persons in the village white under the influence of drink. The provision? of section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure, are no doubt salutary, but it cannot be denied that its unjustifiable resort can become an engine of oppression. Its. provisions restrain the liberty of a person to a great extent and it cannot be said that a person is put to no harm if he is asked to execute a bond for good behaviour. The application of the provisions of section 110 must be kept within its strict statutory bounds and care should be observed that a person''s liberty is not fettered when the acts complained of do not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (f) of the section. In the present instance, no serious effort has been made to show that the petitioner is a character so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at liberty without security hazardous to the community.

In this view of the matter, there is no legal justification for the action which has been taken by the Magistrate and affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepore. This petition, therefore, must be allowed and the order of the Magistrate set aside.