1. A preliminary order under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, was issued by the Joint Magistrate of Tindivanam calling upon the petitioner and eight others to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace for a period of twelve months, and ten instances were cited of acts which tended to show that it was necessary to bind them over. The Magistrate began the enquiry; and after one witness had been examined in chief, the police represented to the Court that even after the institution of the proceedings the petitioner and the others had committed a number of other misdeeds which also showed that it was necessary to bind them over. The police therefore asked the Court to pass a supplementary order under Section 112. The Joint Magistrate acceded to the request of the police and the question that arises in revision is whether that practice is illegal or objectionable.
2. It would be unfortunate if a Court could not take judicial notice of what had taken place after the institution of proceedings of this nature; for the behaviour of a person who was subject to these proceedings after the institution of the proceedings is a very relevant factor to help the Court to determine what order it should pass. The behaviour and action of the person against whom a notice under Section 112 has been issued may be such as to lead the Magistrate to conclude that even though his behaviour before the issue of the notice had been reprehensible, yet in view of the evidence of his good intentions and good behaviour since the institution of the proceedings, it was not necessary to bind him over. If, on the other hand, the subsequent conduct of such a person indicates that despite the existence of these proceedings and his having been called upon to show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, he continues to flout the law and to commit illegal acts, it would seem most desirable that the Court should take notice of this and be influenced by it in framing its final order. Admittedly, there is nothing in the Code which prohibits the issuing of a supplementary order under Section 112; and it can be open to no objection that I can think of. The persons affected by the second notice should, of course, have sufficient time to consider it, and such time has been given to the petitioner in this case.
3. I do not consider that the petitioner is in any way aggrieved. The petition is accordingly dismissed.