Sadayan and Others vs Paramasivam and Others

Maheswaran, J.—This Revision is directed against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Periakulam, directing the

members of the A and B parties, except counter-petitioner No. 7 to execute an interim bond for a sum of Rs. 500 on their own surety till the

disposal of the case.

The notice issued under, S. 111, Crl.P.C. shows that information was furnished by the Deputy Inspector of Police against both A party and B

party alleging that they are disturbing the tranquillity of the village. As many as five instances are furnished in the notice which clearly show that

there was a likelihood of breach of the peace. The first instance shows that A party formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly

weapons with the common intention of committing trespass into the land of counter-petitioner No. 1 of B party. It is also seen that a criminal case

is pending in respect of that information. So also the second instance as well as the third and the fourth instances show that criminal cases are

pending against the A party as they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons for committing trespass into the land of ''B''

party counter petitioners and for destroying garden produce worth Rs. 13,000 and for assaulting one Rajendran of B party.

Two Points are raised by the counsel appearing for the petitioner and they are: (1) that the Magistrate was wrong in clubbing both A party and

B party together and binding them over to execute a bond in the same proceedings: and (2) that the period mentioned in the order for which the

bond should be in force is rather vague.

The first contention appears to be well-founded, because a learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal M.P. No. 1275 of 1978 has held that

two opposing parties to a proceeding under S. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be proceeded against and bound over in one and

the same proceedings. I am in perfect accord with this observation of the learned Judge (Paul, J.). On that ground the order is vitiated.

There is also some force in the next ground raised by the learned counsel. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus:

Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that it is necessary to take security from members of ""A"" and ""B"" parties for keeping the peace.

Accordingly it is ordered that all the members of the ""A"" Party and all the members of ''B"" party except C.P. No. 7, execute an interim bond for a

sum of Rs. 500 on their own surety till the disposal of the case. The Counter petitioners who are absent today should execute the bond before 13th

November, 1978.

S. 107(1) of the Crl.P.C. runs as under:

When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to

do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient

ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a

bond, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one years as the Magistrate thinks fit.

A reading of this Section shows that the bond to be executed for keeping the peace should be for a period not exceeding one year. The impugned

order that they should execute the bond for Rs. 500/- till the disposal of the case is rather vague, for, the disposal of the case may take more than a

year also. If the disposal of the case takes more than year, this order under S. 107 , Cr. P.C. would be vitiated. In that view also the order passed

by the Executive Magistrate has to be set aside. The revision is allowed and the impugned order of the Executive Magistrate is set aside in so far as

the revision petitioners are concerned.