Ram Narain and Others v. State of Bihar

Judgment

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, .J.-This is an appeal by special leave by Ram Narain Singh and six others against the judgment of Patna High Court, wher-~by their revision petition was dismissed in limine. There was a dispute between the appellants on the one side and Ram Prasad and others on the opposite side in re.spect of 8 R. N. SINGH V. BIHAR (Khanna, J.) plot No. 23 situated in village Deayapur in District Patna. Proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Proc~dure were taken in september, 1958 because of th.at dispu1le. In October, 1959 dispute again arose between the parties because of the alleged breaking of the idol of Durga by some of th~ appellants. The idol was stated to have been installed by Ram Prasad. The breaking of the idol gave rise to a criminal case against Ram Narain Singh and Arjan Singh. The accused were, however. stated to have been acquitted in that case. On May 7.

Ram Prasad filed an application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Dinapur against the appellants and some others for taking action under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that application it )'·as stated that there was a good mango crop in the land of Ram Prasad and the appellants and their companions wanted to cause loss to Ram Prasad. The appellant>. it was further stated, used to carry lathis and held out threats to Ram Prasad. The learned magistrate sent that application to the police. The police then submitted a report and t\\'Ll cross cases were started against the opposite parties under scctioa 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Notices were thereafter issued to the parties to furnish bond. The appellants denied the allegations against them and stated that thev were peace loving citizens. They denied! having held out anv threat to Ram Pra.sad or having removed his mango fruits.

The learned m:igistratc ordered the appellants to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with two sureties each for the same amount for one year. and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months. On appeal the Additional Sessions Jud)!~ Patna reduce(! th~ amount of bond to Rs. 1.000 with the sureties of Rs. 500 e3ch for a period of one year. In default each of the appellafas wa! ordered to undergo simple imprisonment1 for a period ~f ninei months. The appeal of one Arjan Singh, who had also been ordered to be bound down. was allowed. The High Cotlrt dismissed in limine the criminal revision filed by the appellants. Mr. U. P. Singh on behalf of the appellants has contended in this Court that as the matter relates to the year 1959, it would not be aproper to bind down the appellants'in the year l 9i2. It is p0inted out that because of the stay orders granted by the different courts, no bond has so far been furnished by the appellants. A~ against that. Mr. Bindra on behalf of the State has urged that this Court should not interfere with the order of the courts below.

Under section I 07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate 0r Magistrate of the first class may JCequire a person to show cause (1973] 1 S.C:.K. why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without suretie-s, for keeping the peace for a period not exceecling orie year as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix, if such Magistrate is informed that the said person is lil:ely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tiranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may occasion breach of peace, or disturb public tranquillity and if the Magistrate is further of the ·opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against that person. The underlying object of the section is preventive and not penal. The section is designed to enable the magistrate to take measures with a .view to pre'lent commission of offer.ces involving· breach of peace or disturbance of public transquillity.

Wide powers have been conferred on the magistrates specified in this section and as the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guility of an offence, it is e-ssential that the power should be exercised strictly in accordance with Jaw. The question with which we are cor.cerned in this appeal is whether because of an incident which took place in 1959, the appellants should be compelled in 1972 to furnish bonds for keeping t11c peace, for that would be the necessary consequence of the dismissal of the appeal. We may at the outset state that we find it difficult to accede to the submfssion made by Mr. Singh that -Once the period for which .Pond was ordered to be executed hGS expired, the order becomes nugatory and the proceedings under section 10 7 of the Code of Criwinal Procedure must be dropped.

The proceedings under section I 07 of the Code, in our opinion, ·can continue. despite the fact that the period for which the bond was r~quired! to be execu~d has expired. To • hold otherwise would lead to the result that the proceedings under the section would have to be dropped if the person proceeded .1gainst succeeds in protacting the proceedings, even though the a pprehcnsion of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquilJ.fty uill perS'ists. At the• s'arne time, the court is not precluded from taking into account· the subsequent events. Jf"the material on record discloses that though there was a danger of breach of peace ~t one time, because of the happening of a subsequent event the danger of brc<ich of peace has disappeared, the court can drop the proceedin11s and discharge the person proreeded against.

Even in the absence of some positive evidence of reconciliation between the opposin!! parties, if the court finds that since the date of incident complained of, a very long period ha5 efapsed during the course of which nothing untowards has happened, th~ court m'lv well draw the inference that the dane;er of breach c.f peace has vanished. Jn the present case the proceedings agains~ the appellants were initiated in 1959. The proceedings relat" to an incident also.of 1959. There is nothing to show that during the period of 13 R. N, SINGH v. BIHAR (Khanna, J,) years since then, 'the appellants have done anything as may cause apprehension of breach of peace. In the c·ontext. of the abJve circumstances, we are of the ~inion that it would not be eKpedient or essential to compel the appellants to execute bonds under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the year 1972. We therefore accept the app~al and discharge th~ appellants. V. P. S. A ppeai a!luwed.