Skip to content


In Re: Venkatasubba Reddy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Case No. 733 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 685 of 1954
Judge
Reported inAIR1955AP96; 1955CriLJ779
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 117(3)
AppellantIn Re: Venkatasubba Reddy and ors.
Appellant AdvocateA. Bhujanga Rao, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Malakonda Reddi, Adv. for Public Prosecutor
Excerpt:
criminal - legality of order - section 117 (3) of criminal procedure code, 1898 - petitioner challenged order passed by magistrate under section 112 of code - alleged order passed before enquiry started thus contrary to section 117 (1) - held, order bad in law and allowed petition. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds..........s. 117, criminal p. c. section 117 (3), criminal p. c., contemplates a direction for executing interim bonds pending the completion of the inquiry if the magistrate considers it necessary to do so in the interests of peace and order. it looks to me that under this section it is only after the parties appear in court and the magistrate proceeds to inquire into the matter he finds the necessity to do so, he could take action in that behalf. i do not think it is permissible for the magistrate to call upon the persons concerned to execute interim bonds even before the inquiry starts, and as a part of the order under s. 112. criminal p. c. again it is also necessary under s. 117(3), criminal p.c., that the magistrate should give reasons in support of the order directing them to execute.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) The petitioners in this case seek to have the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Madanapalle, under S. 117(3), Criminal P. C., revised.

(2) On information laid before him by the Police that the petitioners were likely to commit a breach of the peace, and disturb the public tranquillity, and also do wrongful acts which might occasion a breach of the peace, or public tranquillity, the Magistrate issued an order under S. 112, Criminal P. C. As a part of it, he also directed the petitioners to execute interin bonds as he considered that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of the breach of the peace or public tranquillity. It is this order that is under revision.

(3) It is urged by Mr. Bhujanga Rao in support of this Revision Case that a Magistrate issuing an order under S. 112, Criminal P. C., cannot pass an order under S. 117(3), Criminal P. C., before the enquiry starts, under sub-s. (1) of S. 117, Criminal P. C. There is substance in this contention. Under S. 112, Criminal P. C., the Magistrate has to issue notice to the persons concerned setting forth the substance of information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be enforced and the number, character and class of sureties required. The procedure to be followed in holding the enquiry is laid down under S. 117, Criminal P. C. Section 117 (3), Criminal P. C., contemplates a direction for executing interim bonds pending the completion of the inquiry if the Magistrate considers it necessary to do so in the interests of peace and order. It looks to me that under this section it is only after the parties appear in court and the Magistrate proceeds to inquire into the matter he finds the necessity to do so, he could take action in that behalf. I do not think it is permissible for the Magistrate to call upon the persons concerned to execute interim bonds even before the inquiry starts, and as a part of the order under S. 112. Criminal P. C. Again it is also necessary under S. 117(3), Criminal P.C., that the Magistrate should give reasons in support of the order directing them to execute interim bonds. In this case, the Magistrate has not adduced any reasons for his action. So another requirement of the section has also not been complied with.

(4) This view of mine gains support from a judgment of Soamsundaram, J. in A Criminal Revision Case No. 470 of 1953 (Mad) (A). In -- 'Ranganadha Mudaliar v. Emperor', 1934 Mad WN 1353 (B), Burn J. observed that he was not prepared to say that a Magistrate cannot in any case pass an order under S. 117(3), Criminal P. C., before the inquiry begins, though in that particular case he thought that the order sought to be revised wa unsupportable. With deference to the learned Judge, I feel that S. 117(3), Criminal P. C., cannot be invoked before the parties appeared before the Magistrate as required under S. 112, Criminal P. C., and the enquiry starts.

(5) It follows that the order calling upon the petitioners to execute interim bonds is unsustainable, and it is set aside. But this does not preclude the Magistrate from requiring the parties to execute bonds, if the necessity for such a course is revealed after the inquiry begains.

(6) Order set aside.

D. R. R.

(7) Petition allowd.


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