Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 30 of 1968, decided on 6th August 1968.

S. 107‑Proceedings under S. 107, necessarily of urgent nature and action must be taken swiftly‑Magistrate clearly recording finding as to his satisfaction regarding apprehension of breach of peace before starting proceedings‑Held, Magistrate acted strictly in accordance with law.

S. 107(3), (4) & 114, proviso‑Warrant of arrest‑Magistrate in his order under S. 107 recording his satisfaction that breach of peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by detention of person complained against‑Held, Magistrate fully entitled to issue warrant of arrest in circumstances of case.

S. 496 read with Ss. 107 & 117‑Bail‑Security for keeping peace‑Person proceeded against under S. 107 required to furnish bail bond‑Requiring such person to also furnish ad interim bond for keeping peace under S. 117‑Held, nothing illegal in such order.

Abu Saleque for Petitioners.

Nemo for the Opposite‑Party.

Date of hearing : 7th June 1968.

This application is directed against an order passed in a proceeding under section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code. An application under section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate (North), Chittagong by the opposite‑party Kabir Ahmad against the 11 petitioners. On hearing the application the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

"Order dated 20‑7‑67.

This is a prayer for action under section 107, Cr. P. C. Heard. I am satisfied that there is apprehension of breach of peace by the O. Ps. by way of assault, molestation and other various ways.

Draw up proceeding under section 107, Cr. P. C. against the O. Ps. asking them to show cause why they shall not be ordered to execute bonds of Rs. 1,000 each with two sts. of the like amount each for keeping peace for a period of one year.

I am further satisfied that breach of peace cannot be averted unless the O. Ps. are arrested. Issue W/A under section 114, Cr. P. C. against the O. Ps.

(Sd.) S. Majumdar,

28‑8‑67 S. D. Magistrate."

Thereafter the present petitioners surrendered in Court on 24‑7‑67 and the learned Magistrate passed the following order:

"Order dated 24‑7‑67.

All the 11 accused surrendered and prayed for bail. Admit each surrendering accused to bail of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand) only with one lawyer and 1 (one) local surety i.d. to Hajat. Each accused is also required to furnish ad interim bonds of Rs. 1,000 with one surety of like amount.

Recall process against them.

To date. Till the ad interim bonds are accepted the accused to remain in Hajat.

(Sd.) M. H. Ali,

S. D. Magistrate."

The petitioners complied with the order and furnished the bail bond as required by the order and also executed the ad interim bonds but challenged the order before the learned Sessions Judge who refused to refer this case to this High Court. The petitioners thereafter obtained this rule.

It was argued before me first that the proceedings should not have been instituted without the order of an inquiry. But I do not find any provision for such inquiries in section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code. Section 107 prescribes that whenever a District 'Magistrate, Sub‑Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the first Class is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace . . . . . . if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year.

In this case the learned Magistrate has clearly recorded that he was satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of peace by the opposite‑parties before me by way of assault and mole station and other various ways. He has recorded clearly his finding regarding his apprehension of the breach of peace. The law does not require that he will have to be satisfied as to the apprehension of the breach of the peace in any particular way. The learned Magistrate is empowered to be satisfied on the information supplied by the applicant. These proceedings are necessarily of an emergent nature and actions must be taken swiftly otherwise the proceedings themselves may become infructous. I find that the Magistrate has acted strictly in accord ance with law in starting the proceedings on being satisfied on the information supplied by the applicant.

It was then argued that the learned Magistrate should not have issued warrant of arrest at the very first instance. Sub section 3 of section 107 read with subsection (4) clearly indicates the power of the Court to issue warrant of arrest. In case the Magistrate is of the opinion that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by detaining such persons in custody. Where the Magistrate is not empowered to take action under section 107 of Criminal Procedure Code. He must record his reasons for issue of the warrant of arrest. In this case the learned Magistrate has clearly recorded that he was further satisfied that breach of peace cannot be averted unless the e opposite‑parties are arrested. The proviso of section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code gives the learned Magistrate in this case the power to issue such a warrant. Under this proviso the learned Magistrate has not to record any reason. It is only his satisfaction that breach of peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest of such persons. The learned Magistrate has clearly indicated in his order that he was issuing the warrant of arrest under section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was fully entitled to do so.

It was next argued that the learned Magistrate should not have directed the furnishing the ad interim bond. On this count it was first argued that he had no power to do so. But section 117, subsection (3) clearly empowers the Magistrate to require the opposite‑parties before him to furnish such a bond pending the inquiry.

It was argued on this point as the learned Magistrate had required the opposite‑parties to furnish a bail of a sum of Rs. 1000 he should not have also required them to furnish the ad interim bond. The bail bond was taken from the accused to ensure their attendance in the inquiry and the ad interim bond d was taken from them so that they may keep the peace during the inquiry. Therefore there is nothing illegal in the order of the learned Magistrate requiring that opposite‑parties before me to furnish the bail bond as well as ad interim bond for keeping the peace.

There is no substance in this rule and hence it is discharged.

Rule discharged.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.