Full Judgment
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.
1. The questions referred to us are these: (i) Has a District Magistrate power under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the cancellation of a bond to keep the peace executed on an order by a Subordinate Magistrate on any other ground except that the bond is no longer necessary? (ii) Has the case of Barka Chandra Dey v. Janmejoy Dutt (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 948, been correctly decided? In my opinion, the first question ought to be answered in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Section 125 runs thus: 'The Chief Presidency or District Magistrate may at any time, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel any bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour executed under this Chapter by order of any Court in his district not superior to his Court.' In the case of Barka Chandra Dey v. Janmejoy Dutt (1905) I.L.R. 32 Calc. 948, a Division Bench of this Court held that the power under that section can only be exercised by a District Magistrate in a case where he finds that the bond is no longer necessary. With all respect to the learned Judges, who decided that case, I can find nothing in the language of the section to justify this view. The language of the section is very wide, and it seems to me that the words 'for sufficient-reasons' are opposed to the view laid down in the case I have referred to. The District Magistrate may at any time cancel the bond for sufficient reasons, that is lor reasons which the Magistrate thinks sufficient. If he thinks that the bond ought never to have been required, is not that a sufficient reason? I should say so. There is nothing in the section to qualify or restrict the natural meaning of the language used, or to indicate that sufficient reasons means reasons in connection with something which has occurred after the execution of the bond.
2. The question should be answered as I have stated above, and with this expression of our opinion the case will go back to the Referrring Bench.
Ghose, J.
3. I agree in the judgment just delivered by my Lord. In the present case, the petitioner executed the security-bond demanded; and the only question which the District Magistrate had to consider, and should have considered, was whether for any sufficient reason the bond in question should be cancelled. Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is sufficiently wide, and I do not think that it can be held to be limited only to cases where, subsequent to the execution of the bond, circumstances have arisen which make the bond unnecessary.
Rampini, J.
4. I am of the same opinion. I would answer the first question put to us in the affirmative and the second in the negative.
Geidt, J.
5. I am also of the same opinion.
Holmwood, J.
6. I am also of the same opinion.