R.N. Misra, C.J
1. The petitioners challenge the direction of the learned Executive Magistrate, Patnagarh, on conclusion of a proceeding under Section 107, Cr.P.C. requiring them to furnish interim bonds as provided under the Code to the tune of Rs. 500/- each to keep the peace in the locality for six months. The order of the learned Magistrate was passed on 14 th Feb., 1977. An appeal was carried to the Sessions Judge of Bolangir which was ultimately dismissed on 16th July, 1979. The order of the learned Magistrate as upheld in appeal is assailed in this revision application.
2. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that more than 4| years have passed since the order of the learned Magistrate was made and within this time there has been no further overt act from the side of the petitioners which would endanger the peace in the locality and, therefore, reliance has been placed on the observations of this Court in the case of Tabarak Ali Khan v. State. (1972) 2 Cut WR 1102, and Mr. Acharya has asked me to set aside the order and quash the proceeding.
On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate hag placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramnarain Singh v. State of Bihar : 1972CriLJ1444 , where it has been said that mere protraction of the proceeding by preferring appeal and revision could not bring about nullification of the order requiring bonds to be furnished. If. that were the position, every person directed to furnish a bond would try to take further proceedings contemplated under the Code and protract the matter and ultimately get out of the bond directed to be given.
I agree on principle with the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate which is in accord with the principle indicated by the Supreme Court in the reported decision referred to above that mere protraction of the proceeding and passing of time cannot be a ground to bring about nullification of the order requiring bonds to be executed. A fair wav 'to look at the matter would be to require the learned Magistrate now to review the position, particularly with reference to station diary entries, if any, made in the meantime to find out whether there was any attempt by the petitioners to disturb the peace in the locality. Giving an opportunity either to the police or to the parties to file affidavits might bring in a picture which may not be a reflection of the reality, but one would expect station diary entries to have been made if there was really any overt act from the petitioners' side. While not vacating the order of the learned Magistrate, I remit the matter to him to require the police to report if there have been station diary entries of overt act from the petitioners' side between 14-2-77 and this day. If there have been any overt acts for which station diary entries have been made and the learned Magistrate upon considering those is of the opinion that the bonds already directed to be executed should be executed, he should proceed to enforce his own order in accordance with law. In case there is no station diary entry, or if there be any, and on an assessment thereof he comes to the conclusion that bonds should not be taken notwithstanding his own earlier order, no bonds need be taken from the petitioners. The learned Magistrate should do this within two months from the date of receipt of the records.
The L.C.R. be sent back immediately.