| CASE: | State of Maharashtra and another V. Mangali Dewaiyya Pupalla |
| CITATION: | 1994 Mh LJ 483 |
| APPLICANTS REPRESENTED BY: | – D.D. Sinha, A.G.P., Indira Bodade, A.G.P., K.S.Dhote, A.G.P. and S.B. Wahane, A.G.P. |
| NON-APPLICANTS REPRESENTED BY: | R.T. Anthony |
| CASE NO: | 96 to 105 of 1992 |
| CASE TYPE: | Criminal revision application |
| COURT: | Bombay High court |
| BENCH: | Justice B Chavan |
| JUDGEMENT DAY: | 16th October 1992 |
INTRODUCTION:
The Magistrate’s power to direct a person to execute a bond for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior until the conclusion of an inquiry under section 116 of the code of criminal procedure, and is restricted only to cases arising under sections 108, 109 or 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The proceedings that have been arising under section 107 read with sections 116 and 151 of the Code of criminal procedure, the Special Executive Magistrate directed each person that has been involved in the case to execute bonds with solvent sureties pending the inquiry under section 116 of the Code. The revision has been challenged and the said order, the Sessions Judge uphold that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pronounce the order within the ambit of section 116(3). In the revision, the counsel representing State challenged the said order and stated that cases observed by sections 108, 109, and 110 of the Code of criminal procedure are of a more serious nature than those provided under section 107 of the Code. The power of the Magistrate to direct any person to execute a bond for keeping the peace until the completion of the inquiry under section 116(3) is limited only to cases that arise under sections 108, 109, or 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applications for revision by the State have been dismissed. Further, it has been interpreted that no provisions of any statute can be interpreted in such a manner that may render it, and if it does then it should provide a meaningful interpretation.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The fact of this case arises with the power of the Magistrate who is holding an inquiry under section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) in respect of information led before him against a person under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, acting under sub-section (3)of section 116 of the Code can pass an order directing such person to execute a Bond with or without surety for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior during thependency of such inquiry till its conclusion. The question only arises in the matters related to where they disposed of the ordinary order with the help of this section of the code. The Special Executive Magistrate of Chandrapur in the proceedings provided under section 107 read with 116 and 151 of the Code of criminal procedure initiated in Istanbul and registered by the Police inspector, directed each person in these cases to execute a P.R. Bond with Rs. 25,000 with one or two solvent sureties in like amount pending the inquiry in the case registered on the Istagasha against each of them. This order has been challenged before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, of Chandrapur by filing different criminal revision applications. The learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, of Chandrapur, has concluded that the power under sub-section (3) of section 116 of the code of criminal procedure to direct any person to execute a Bond does not apply to a case arising under section 107 of the Code of the criminal procedure and consequently, the Special Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction and had no power of authority to pass such order. Accordingly, he has set aside all these orders and directed the concerned Executive Magistrate to proceed with further inquiry.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1. Whether the magistrate has the power to hold the inquiry under section 116 of the code of criminal procedure?
2. What will be the limit of the power of a magistrate to execute a bond with or without surety with respect to the code?
3. Whether special executive magistrate can direct such persons to execute such bond with or without surety?
CONTENTIONS OF APPLICANT:
The applicant submitted that the provisions related to clause (a) of the sub-section (3) of section 116 would totally render and according to that well-accepted construction of statute has no provision that can be interpreted in a manner which will not render it otiose, if it has been provided a meaningful interpretation. In the view of the applicant, the Correct interpretation of the provision related to clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 116 of the Code of criminal procedure is that the power of the Magistrate is to direct any person to execute a Bond for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior in the society until the conclusion of the inquiry and are prohibited only to the cases arising under sections 108, 109 or 110 of the Code, directing all the persons against whom the cases are pending under the section 107 read with section 116 of the Code of the criminal procedure in a correct manner and it does not provide any interference. Rule related to the discharged stands accordingly and all the applications of the revisions are dismissed accordingly.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent has submitted that the power exercised by the Executive magistrate is backed by the code of criminal procedure. Further, he has referred the section 116 of the code, which states that no person against whom the proceedings are not being taken under Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 of the code shall be directed to execute a bond for the purpose of maintaining good behavior and the conditions related to such bond, and has to be also mentioned these details in the bonds that are whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the extent of pecuniary of their liability, shall not be more burdensome than those specified in the order under section 111. For the requirements of this Section the fact that a person who is a habitual offender or is dangerous as to threat for security hazardous at large to the community.
JUDGEMENT:
The court stated that It is needless to say that it will be open to the Special Executive Magistrate, Chandrapur, to hold the inquiry in the accordance with the law, but the subject- matter related to the objections, if any, raised by the representative of the non-applicant on the question that whether the inquiry could further proceed in the ambit of the bar under Sub-section (6) of Section 116 of the code of the criminal procedure. The court has further observed that the code of criminal procedure is the procedural law which means it regulates the provision related to the procedure to be followed in the matter of crime and there is no exception to this code provided. If any magistrate exercised his power outside of the ambit of this code, then the related to that will be restricted. Court has further observed the scope of sections 107, 116, 111(a), 108(a), and 110 read with sections 107 and 108 of the code of criminal procedure. The court has further observed the special executive magistrate does not exercise his power to execute a bond with or without surety in the matter related to Chapter VIII except under certain situations that Benn mentioned under the code of the criminal procedure.
CONCLUSION:
The provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Code of criminal procedure, are related to the provisions related to security for keeping the peace and for good behavior. Section 106 states that cases related to the persons who are directed to furnish security for keeping the peace on conviction. Section 107 states the provision related to cases in which furnishing security for keeping the peace is ordered, where the concerned person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably cause occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. In the provided section Section 108 of the code of criminal procedure contemplates cases where persons disseminating seditious matters are distributed. Section 109 deals with cases related to the persons who are suspected and section 110 of the code of criminal procedure deals with regarding offenders who are habitual by nature. The provisions related to Sections 111 to 116 provide the actual procedure to be undertaken by the concerned Magistrate in the cases that are arising under Sections 107, 108, 109, and 110. Section 111 can be read in a different manner When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, section 108, section 109, orSection 110 if the code of criminal procedure seems necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall order a judgment in writing, by putting all the required substance of theinformation received, the amount of the bond to be executed, for the term by which it has to be in force, and the name, number, character, and class of sureties if required.
written by-Rishu Anand, Law College Dehradun, Dehradun, (VIII Semester)
