Moni Sikari Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. - Court Judgment

J.N. Hore, J.

1. The present revisional application is directed against the order dated 18.1.84 by which the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Diamond Harbour drew up a proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners.

2. Mr. Mondal, learned Advocate for the petitioners strongly contends that the impugned proceeding under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code is illegal for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code and is liable to be quashed. A proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. is instituted by a preliminary order under Section 111 Cr P.C. which shall comply with these conditions (1) written order : (2) substance of information against the person : (3) amount of bond, (4) period for the bond, (5) number, character and class of sureties. Substance of the information on which action has been taken must be given in the order served. Notice under Section 111 Cr. P.C. being in the nature of a charge, the person is entitled to have some, definite information as to the case he has been called upon to answer and so the substance or the purport of the information against him should be clearly disclosed. The substance should contain such information as may enable the person to answer the charge or defend himself properly. Merely giving a bad name to a person and reproducing the clause of a section, as is done m this case, is giving no information. The provisions of Section 111 Cr. P.C. are mandatory and non-compliance the reactivitiates the entire proceeding.

3. In the instant case substance of the information was not given in the notice. The order of the learned Magistrate is in the following terms. 'Seen P. R. Drew up Proceedings Under Section 107 Cr. P.C. against all the O.Ps. Heard petitioner. Seen police report. It appears that you are likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or do any wrongful act which may result breach of peace or disturbance to public tranquillity.

4. You are hereby directed to show cause Under Section 107 Cr. P.C. by 3.4.84 why you should not be ordered to furnish a bond of Rs. 500/- with one surety of the. like amount to keep the peace for a period of one year'.

5. It is clear that substance of the information received by the learned Magistrate has not been stated in the order. The substance of the information was not also stated in the notice served upon the petitioners. The notice is in the following terms. 'Whereas it appears from the report of the Officer-in-Charge Kulpi P.S. as well as from the petition of State that there is an apprehension of serious breach of peace by you and that you are very dangerous and desperate in nature and that you are likely to commit breach of peace and disturb tranquillity.

6. I do hereby order and direct you to appear before me on 3.4.84 at 10-30 A.M. and to show cause why you should not keep the peace for a period of one year'.

7. It is clear that substance of the information is not stated in the notice which merely gives a bad name to the petitioners and sets down the clause of the section. The report of the Officer-in-Charge and the petition of the State have been referred to but substance of the allegation contained therein is not stated nor the copies of the same were sent along with the notice. The petitioners were entirely in the drak what they would show cause about. In my opinion, the impugned order initiating the proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. is illegal for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 111 Cr. P.C. and it as such liable to be quashed.

8. In the result, the revisional application is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. The impugned proceeding is hereby quashed.

9. Let the records be sent down to the lower Court concerned at once.