Skip to content


Reddy Channabasavanna Goud and ors. Vs. the State of Mysore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ1049
AppellantReddy Channabasavanna Goud and ors.
RespondentThe State of Mysore and ors.
Excerpt:
.....and that the order complained of was consequently bad in law. . in the case before me the sub-divisional magistrate has failed to state that, in his opinion, a breach of peace is likely to take place......come prepared to meet the said allegations.. in the case before me the sub-divisional magistrate has failed to state that, in his opinion, a breach of peace is likely to take place. it is further clear that the acts in respect of which security is required must not be acts the repetition of which may be merely apprehended from the commission of similar acts but acts from which a; reasonable inference can be drawn that the accused are likely to commit a breach of the peace. in the circumstances of the case i hold that there was no legal justification: for the sub-divisional magistrate to take action under section 107 of the criminal procedure code.5. in the result this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate is set aside.
Judgment:
ORDER

C. Honniah, J.

1. The petitioners 40 in number belong to the village of Hirebannimatti in the district of Bellary where there are two parties one led by Reddy Channabasavanna Goud (petitioner No. 1) and another led by BeKary Basalingappa. Bellary Basalingappa made a complaint to the police of Hadagalli stating that some of the petitioners trespassed into his house and committed theft of foodgrains on 3-5-1972. The Sub-Inspector of Police sent a report to the Sub' Divisional Magistrate, Hospet to take action under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the petitioners as there was likelihood of breach of peace. His sworn statement was recorded. Whereupon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code as follows:

Whereas it has been made to appear to me from the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hirehadagalli dated 7-5-1972 and his sworn statement dated 11-5-1972.

1. By about 20-10-1971 respondents 10 to 13 trespassed into the land of one Bellary Basalingappa and removed the fence and E. P. set and threatened the said Basalingappa to do away with his life.

2. On 26-11-1971 at about 3-00 P.M. respondents 1, 6, 11, 14 and 16 entered the Engine room of the garden of Basalingappa and removed the parts 'of E. P. Engine.

3. On 3-5-1972 at about 9-00 P.M. respondents 1. 3 to 7, 9 to 11 and 14 to 40 having formed into an unlawful assembly trespassed into the house of Sri A. Basalingappa, used criminal force and committed theft of foodgrains and agricultural implements valued at Rs. 400-00. A case is in the S. No. 8/72 under Sections 143, 147, 352, 379 and 448 of IPC under investigation.

4. B. Basalingappa lodged a private complaint in the court of Munsiff Magistrate, Hadagalli against respondents 1, 3 to 7, 10, 11, 14 to 16, 18 to 20. Respondents 25 and 26, 33, 38 and 40 under Sections 143, 147, 379, 447, IPC and the case P. T. m C.C. No. 111/72;

Likewise the above respondents are apt to commit any act which occasion breach-of peace or disturb the public tranquillity.

In view of the above the undersigned' has got sufficient grounds to believe that an offence under Section 107, Cr.PC is imminent in Hirebannimatti village (Hadagalli Taluk). Hence the respondents 1 ta 40 are hereby called upon to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 500-00 each with a sufficient surety for equal, sum to keep-peace and maintain law and order in Hirebannimatti village for a period of one year,'

2. The petitioners have challenged' the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that legally no proceedings could be taken against them on the allegations made by Bellary Basalingappa and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Hadagalli and that the order complained of was consequently bad in law. From the order of the-Sub-Divisional Magistrate it is clear that some of the petitioners are not at all connected with any of the allegations made by Bellary Basalingappa or by the Sub-Inspector of Police. In regard to an incident that happened on or about 20-10-1971 Bellary Basalingappa made a complaint to the police alleging that, petitioners 10, 11, 12 and 13, trespassed into his land and removed the-fence and electric pump set and threatened'' him to do away with his life. No action has been taken with regard to this complaint as the order itself discloses. In regard to an incident that is alleged to have taken place on 26-11-71 the said Basalingappa made a complaint alleging that, petitioners 1, 6, 11, 14 and 16 entered the engine room of his garden and removed the fence and electric pump set. Regarding that also no action has been taken. With respect to other incident alleged to have taken place-on 3-5-1972 the same Basalingappa has made a complaint alleging that petitioners 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 11 and 14 to 40 trespassed into his house and committed theft of foodgrains amf agricultural implements. Regarding this it is. Seen that the investigation is pending. Again the said Basalingappa filed a private complaint in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Hadagalli against petitioners 1, 3 to 7, 10, 11, 14 to 16, 18 to 20, 25, 26, 33, 38 and 40 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 379 and 447, I.P.C. and the said case-is pending.

3. From the facts stated above it is clear that in regard to some acts of some-of the petitioners either investigation is; pending or a case has been filed in the-Court. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order does not say that these alleged' acts of some of the petitioners are likely to cause breach of peace or disturb public-tranquillity. These are specific acts regarding which actions have already been taken or will be taken by the appropriate authority against the petitioners. However deplorable the state of affairs that prevail between the two factions and whatever may be the gravity of the situation, any action taken by the authorities which does not conform to the provisions of the law as laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be maintained. No penal action can be taken against a citizen however reprehensible his conduct may be and however convenient it might prove to the authorities to take action against him unless :the law warrants it. Looking at the case before me I have no hesitation to say that there is not a shadow of evidence on record 'io prove those conditions which have been expressly laid down in Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code before any action under that section can be taken. The material portion of that section runs as follows:

Whenever a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, is informed that any person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity the Magistrate may... require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond....

It is clear from the reading of this section that before a person is called upon to show cause why he should not execute a bond it must be established (i) that he is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or (ii) that he is likely -to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach or disturb the public tranquillity. It is also clear that, it is the individual who is contemplated in this section and it is the individual act that must be brought home. The only case in which a person can be punished for the wrongs done by others is, where he (or body of persons) instigates the offence. Barring that, no person can be foisted with any penalty for acts done by others on whom he has no control for whose conduct he cannot be 'held responsible. The circumstances alleged against some of the petitioners do not disclose that they have committed the various acts alleged against them in pursuance of their common object. A mere omnibus statement to that effect that the petitioners had committed various acts is not sufficient to take action against them under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, as stated earlier those acts themselves have not led to any breach of peace or are likely to occasion breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity.

4. Moreover, the information of the 4dnd mentioned in Section 107 of the Criminal nal Procedure Code must be of a clear and definite kind directly affecting the person against whom process is issued and it should disclose tangible details so that he may come prepared to meet the said allegations.. In the case before me the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has failed to state that, in his opinion, a breach of peace is likely to take place. It is further clear that the acts in respect of which security is required must not be acts the repetition of which may be merely apprehended from the commission of similar acts but acts from which a; reasonable inference can be drawn that the accused are likely to commit a breach of the peace. In the circumstances of the case I hold that there was no legal justification: for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take action under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. In the result this revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is set aside.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //