Jagtar Singh and ors. Vs. State

Jagtar Singh and ors. vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 18, 1983

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/756393

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/756393
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Kanta Bhatnagar, J.
Decided On: Mar 18, 1983
Case Number: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 72/83
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 107--Case registered Under Section 107--Show cause notice requiring execution of bond for Rs. 500/--Held, order is ex facie erroneous.;The learned Magistrate has passed the order for registering the case under Section 107, 116(3) Cr. P.C. and issue of notice to the petitioners to sh...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jagtar Singh and ors.

Respondent

State

Legal References

Reported In: 1983WLN(UC)117

Excerpt

.....to show cause why they should not be bound down for keeping good behaviour is ex facie erroneous.;revision allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 50/- for keeping good behaviour for a period of six months. this section provides for an order, or a direction to the person, proceeded against, for executing personal bond with or without surety to keep peace and maintaining good behaviour both, but proviso to this sub-section places a bar on giving direction to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour in cases other than falling under sections 108, 109 or 110 cr. in this view of the matter the court requiring the petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound down for keeping good behaviour is ex-facie erroneous. hence the revision petition is allowed to the extent that issuance of notice for maintaining good behaviour is illegal and..........in my opinion rightly so. the learned magistrate has passed the order for registering the case under section 107-116(3) cr.p.c. and issue of notice to the petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound down with a surery of rs. 50/- for keeping good behaviour for a period of six months. section 107 deals only with taking security for keeping the peace. section 116(3) empowers the magistrate to direct the person in respect of whom the proceedings under the provisions of section 107 to 110 are initiated to furnish security. if there is any immediate danger of breach of peace, an order can be passed at any time after the commencement of the proceedings. this section provides for an order, or a direction to the person, proceeded against, for executing personal bond with or without surety to keep peace and maintaining good behaviour both, but proviso to this sub-section places a bar on giving direction to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour in cases other than falling under sections 108, 109 or 110 cr.p.c. as is evident from the impugned order the case was registered under section 107 and not under 3 succeeding sections. in this view of the matter the court requiring the petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound down for keeping good behaviour is ex-facie erroneous. hence the revision petition is allowed to the extent that issuance of notice for maintaining good behaviour is illegal and deserves to be set aside. however it will be open to the learned magistrate to issue notice in accordance with the relevant provisions.

Full Judgment

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Admit, Issue notice. Mr Udawat, learned Public. Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of non petitioner No. 1 and Mr L. R. Calla on behalf of non petitioner No 2 at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter has been finally heard today.

2. Mr. Calla raisd a preliminary objection that all that the impugned order speaks is a direction to the non petitioners to show cause about the action taken against him, and, therefore, there is no illegality to be challenged by way of filing the revision petition. According to him even if there is any wrong recorded term in the order this point may be raised by the petitioners in that court itself by after putting in appearance in compliance to the notices. Had it been only a question of issuing show cause notice in a proper way, this court would have looked into the matter as to whether an interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for or not? But in the present case the illegality of the order is challenged and in my opinion rightly so. The learned Magistrate has passed the order for registering the case under Section 107-116(3) Cr.P.C. and issue of notice to the petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound down with a surery of Rs. 50/- for keeping good behaviour for a period of six months. Section 107 deals only with taking security for keeping the peace. Section 116(3) empowers the Magistrate to direct the person in respect of whom the proceedings under the provisions Of Section 107 to 110 are initiated to furnish security. If there is any immediate danger of breach of peace, an order can be passed at any time after the commencement of the proceedings. This section provides for an order, or a direction to the person, proceeded against, for executing personal bond with or without surety to keep peace and maintaining good behaviour both, but proviso to this Sub-section places a bar on giving direction to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour in cases other than falling under Sections 108, 109 or 110 Cr.P.C. As is evident from the impugned order the case was registered under Section 107 and not under 3 succeeding sections. In this view of the matter the court requiring the petitioners to show cause why they should not be bound down for keeping good behaviour is ex-facie erroneous. Hence the revision petition is allowed to the extent that issuance of notice for maintaining good behaviour is illegal and deserves to be set aside. However it will be open to the learned Magistrate to issue notice in accordance with the relevant provisions.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1983 Same Parties Jagtar Singh and ors. vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Kanta Bhatnagar, J.

Criminal