Judgment:
J.G. Chitre, J.
1. The petitioners are hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order dated 4/1/1995 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Thane, Division Thane, by which the petitioners have been directed to execute personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/-, for uncertain period of time. After perusing the said order, it is obvious that the order is nothing but a cyclostyled sheet of paper, which seems to have been used by Special Executive Magistrate in routine course for deciding the said chapter cases. No doubt it is mentioned that on 21/12/1994 the petitioners were before the said Special Executive Magistrate and he did peruse the report of the complainant against them. The said order also mentions that notice was issued to the petitioners in view of the provisions of Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Code for convenience). What is most important to be seen its that the learned Magistrate in his order has not mentioned the period for which the petitioners were asked to execute the personal bond. The Special Executive Magistrate does not have any power to direct the persons against whom a report has been submitted to him to execute a bond for keeping peace and maintaining good behaviour for uncertain period of time. The said Special Executive Magistrate was exercising the power as Executive Magistrate. Therefore, it will have to be presumed that he happens to be knowing provisions of Sections 107, 111, 112 and 116 of the Code. Even then, he did not mention the period for which the petitioners were to execute the bond in initial two lines. He utilised the 3rd line by underlining it so as to show that thereby he is meaning that the petitioners are to execute the bond pending the enquiry. After three lines, from the 3rd line, again there has been a line provided which shows that the petitioners were to be remanded to Magisterial custody for uncertain period. In this way the said order will have to be read as it appears and on plain reading of the said order brings one to a very funny situation, inconsistent situation. Every order has to be consistent with provisions of law and has to show application of judicial mind. In the present case, the learned Special Executive Magistrate has not taken care of even scoring off the redundant lines and therefore, in this order the words 'cyclostyled sheet of paper' has been deliberately used.
2. When a Special Executive Magistrate is functioning as a Magistrate he has to pass a judicial order, because the order which he has passed is touching the fundamental right of liberty guaranteed by the Constitution of India. He is not supposed to go by following mechanical process of passing already typed order, in which multiple lines are printed for the purpose of meeting the demand of situation. It my itself shows non application of mind, while passing the order though, the learned Magistrate has printed some words to show that he has used his judicial discretion and has applied judicial mind. The right of liberty of a citizen cannot be terminated like this or restricted like this. Use of such cyclostyled sheets has to be deprecated and it is to be brought to the notice of the said Magistrate that he is to perform his duty with seriousness while passing such orders.
3. In view of the infirmities pointed out above, the said order will have to be quashed at the earliest because it is totally illegal. Thus, exercising the jurisdiction and power in view of Article 227 of Constitution of India, this Court grants a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioners and quashes the order which has been assailed by this petition.
Thus, Rule made absolute. The impugned order stands quashed, bonds, if any, executed by the petitioners stand quashed.
The parties are directed to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.