K.B. Subbaya Shetty and anr. Vs. State of Mysore - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- labour & services. dismissal from service: [subhash b adi, j] articles of charges against the respondent regarding obtaining employment by producing false transfer certificate enquiry report finding of disciplinary authority that the charges is proved order of dismissal-challenge to delay in completing the enquiry proceedings reinstatement without back wages pleaded against held, a person, who practices fraud for achieving his object, cannot perpetuate much less on the ground of delay. even one acquires certain rights, they get vitiated once it is proved that the acquisition by means of fraud. the allegation of fraud having been proved, there is no justification for the labour court to set aside the punishment. further, the gravity of the charge cannot be ignored, unless the workman establishes that the delay has vitally prejudiced his case. just because there is delay, the punishment cannot be altered when the charge of fraud is proved. award was set aside. - this order appears to be clearly illegal. 112 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded'.(the underlining (here in 'is mine). from these provisions, it is clear that no person can be asked to execute any interim bond under section 117(3) of the cr.order(1) this petition is directed against the order made by the learned ex-officio 1st class magistrate of sakleshpur under section 117(3) of the commissioner. p. c. in commissioner. mis. no. 1/59-60 on his file. in that case, at the instance of the police, proceedings under section 107 cr.p.c. were initiated against the petitioners. even before issuing notices to the petitioners, the learned magistrate directed that they be bound over under section 117(3) of the cr.p.c. this order appears to be clearly illegal.(2) under section 112 of the cr.p.c.-'when a magistrate, acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.'under sub-section (1) of section 117-'when an order under s. 112 'has been read' or 'explained' under section 113 to a person present in court, or when any person appears or is brought before the magistrate in 'compliance with' or in execution of a summons or warrant,' under s. 114, the magistrate shall proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.'and under section 117(3)-'pleading the completion of the inquiry under sub-s.(1)' the magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, 'for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under s. 112 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded'. (the underlining (here in ' 'is mine).from these provisions, it is clear that no person can be asked to execute any interim bond under section 117(3) of the cr.p.c. without complying with the requirements of secs. 112 and 117(1) of the cr.p.c. moreover, the learned magistrate has not given any reasons in support of his order.(3) in any view of the case, the order of the learned magistrate cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.(4) order quashed.

Judgment:
ORDER

(1) This petition is directed against the order made by the learned Ex-Officio 1st Class Magistrate of Sakleshpur under Section 117(3) of the Commissioner. P. C. In Commissioner. Mis. No. 1/59-60 on his file. In that case, at the instance of the police, proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the petitioners. Even before issuing notices to the petitioners, the learned Magistrate directed that they be bound over under Section 117(3) of the Cr.P.C. This order appears to be clearly illegal.

(2) Under Section 112 of the Cr.P.C.-

'When a Magistrate, acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.'

Under sub-section (1) of Section 117-

'When an order under S. 112 'has been read' or 'explained' under Section 113 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before the Magistrate in 'compliance with' or in execution of a summons or warrant,' under S. 114, the Magistrate shall proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.'

And under Section 117(3)-

'Pleading the completion of the inquiry under sub-s.(1)' the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, 'for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under S. 112 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behavior until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded'. (The underlining (here in ' 'is mine).

From these provisions, it is clear that no person can be asked to execute any interim bond under Section 117(3) of the Cr.P.C. Without complying with the requirements of Secs. 112 and 117(1) of the Cr.P.C. Moreover, the learned Magistrate has not given any reasons in support of his order.

(3) In any view of the case, the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed.

(4) Order quashed.