Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave against the Patna High Court's dismissal in limine of a criminal revision arising from proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The dispute originated between two groups in village Deayapur, District Patna, over plot No. 23 and the alleged breaking of an idol of Durga. Proceedings under Section 144 CrPC were initiated in September 1958 due to the land dispute. In October 1959, a further dispute arose when some appellants allegedly broke the idol installed by Ram Prasad, leading to a criminal case in which the accused were acquitted. On May 7, 1959, Ram Prasad filed an application under Section 107 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dinapur, alleging threats and attempts to cause loss by removal of mango fruits. The police submitted a report and two cross cases under Section 107 were started. The magistrate ordered the appellants to furnish bonds of Rs. 2,000 with two sureties each for one year, in default simple imprisonment of nine months. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge reduced the bond amount to Rs. 1,000 with sureties of Rs. 500 each for one year. The High Court dismissed the revision in limine. The appellants obtained stay orders from various courts, and no bonds were furnished. In the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that since the matter related to 1959, it would not be proper to bind them down in 1972; they also argued that once the period for which the bond was ordered had expired, the order became nugatory. The State urged the Court not to interfere with the orders of the courts below. The Court held that Section 107 is preventive and not penal, designed to enable magistrates to take measures to prevent breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. It rejected the submission that expiry of the bond period made the order nugatory, observing that to accept it would allow persons to defeat proceedings by protracting them while apprehension persists. However, the Court emphasized that it was not precluded from considering subsequent events. If the material on record disclosed that the danger of breach of peace had disappeared, the court could drop proceedings and discharge the person. Even absent positive evidence of reconciliation, a very long period elapsed without untoward incident permits the inference that danger has vanished. In the present case, proceedings were initiated in 1959, and during the 13 years since, the appellants had done nothing causing apprehension of breach of peace. Accordingly, it was not expedient or essential to compel them to execute bonds in 1972. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and discharged the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Measures - Object of Section 107 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 107 - Section 107 confers wide powers on specified magistrates to require execution of a bond for keeping the peace. The object is preventive and not penal, intended to avert breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity. Since it affects the liberty of a person not found guilty of an offence, the power must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. B) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Measures - Effect of Expiry of Bond Period on Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 107 - Proceedings under Section 107 can continue despite expiry of the period for which the bond was ordered to be executed. The court rejected the argument that expiry renders the order nugatory, reasoning that accepting it would allow a person proceeded against to defeat proceedings by protracting them while apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity still persists. Held that the order does not automatically become nugatory upon expiry of the bond period. C) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Measures - Consideration of Subsequent Events and Lapse of Time - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 107 - The court is not precluded from taking into account subsequent events; if material on record shows that the danger of breach of peace has disappeared, proceedings can be dropped and the person discharged. Even without positive evidence of reconciliation, a very long period elapsed without untoward incident permits the inference that the danger has vanished. Held that in the present case, since the incident occurred in 1959 and nothing untoward happened during the following 13 years, it was not expedient or essential in 1972 to compel execution of bonds.
Issue of Consideration
Whether because of an incident which took place in 1959, the appellants should be compelled in 1972 to furnish bonds for keeping the peace under Section 107 CrPC; and whether proceedings under Section 107 become nugatory after expiry of the period for which the bond was ordered.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; appellants discharged from executing bonds under Section 107 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 107 CrPC is preventive not penal
- wide powers must be exercised strictly
- proceedings can continue despite expiry of bond period
- court can consider subsequent events
- long lapse of time without untoward incident permits inference that danger of breach of peace has vanished
- not expedient to compel bonds after 13 years
