http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAM NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1972

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1972 AIR 2225            1973 SCR  (1) 738

ACT: Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 107-Lapse  of time  between date of incident and disposal of  proceedings- Danger   of  breach  of  peace  non-existent-Expediency   of requiring bonds under section.

HEADNOTE: Section 107, Cr.  P. C. is designed to enable the Magistrate to  take  measures  with a view  to  prevent  commission  of offences involving breach of peace or disturbance of  public tranquillity. it is not correct to say that once the  period for  which the bond was ordered to be executed  had  expired the  order becomes nugatory, because, it would lead  to  the result that the proceedings under the section would have  to be  dropped  if  the person proceeded  against  succeeds  in protracting the proceedings even though the apprehension  of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity  still persists. [740B-F] But  the  court is not precluded from  taking  into  account subsequent events.  If the material on record discloses that the danger of breach of peace has disappeared the Court can. drop  the  proceedings and discharge  the  person  proceeded against.   Even  in  the absence  of  positive  evidence  of reconciliation  between the opposing parties. if  the  Court finds  that since the date of the incident complained of,  a very long period had elapsed during which nothing_  untoward had  happened  the  Court may draw the  inference  that  the danger of breach of peace has vanished. [740F-H] In the present case, the appellants were ordered in 1959  to furnish  bonds under the section.  The amount of  the  bonds was  reduced  by  the appellate court.  A  revision  by  the appellants  to the High Court against the order  to  furnish the  bonds  was  dismissed.  The bonds,  however,  were  not executed  because of stay orders passed by the courts.   The appeal  ,against the High Court’s order was disposed  of  by this Court in 1972, and during the 13 years that the  matter was  pending  in  the  lower  Courts  and  this  Court,  the appellants   had   not  done  anything   which   may   cause apprehension of breach of peace. [740H; 741A-B] Therefore,  it was not expedient to compel them  to  execute the bonds.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION :   Criminal Appeal No.  63 (N) of 1968. Appeal from the judgmen and order dated July 10, 1967 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No. 932 of 1967. U.   P. Singh, for the appellants. N.   S. Bindra and R. C. Prasad, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J.--This is an appeal by special leave by Ram Narain Singh  and  six others against the judgment  of  Patna  High Court,  whereby  their revision petition  was  dismissed  in limine. There  was a dispute between the appellants on the one  side and Ram Prasad and others on the opposite side in respect of 739 plot No. 23 situated in village Deayapur in District  Patna. Proceedings  under  section  144 of  the  Code  of  Criminal Procedure  were  taken in September, 1958  because  of  that dispute.   In October, 1959 dispute again arose between  the parties because of the alleged breaking of the idol of Durga by some of the appellants.  The idol was stated to have been installed by Ram Prasad.  The breaking of the idol gave rise to a criminal case against Ram Narain Singh and Arjan Singh. The accused were, however, stated to have been acquitted  in that  case.  On May 7, 1959 Ram Prasad filed an  application before  the  Sub Divisional Magistrate Dinapur  against  the appellants  and some others for taking action under  section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  In that  application it  was stated that there was a good mango crop in the  land of Ram Prasad and the appellants and their companions wanted to cause loss to Ram Prasad.  The appellants. it was further stated,  used  to carry lathes and held out threats  to  Ram Prasad.  The learned magistrate sent that application to the police.   The police then submitted a report and  two  cross cases  were  started  against  the  opposite  parties  under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Notices were thereafter  issued  to  the parties to  furnish  bond.   The appellants  denied the allegations against them  and  stated that  they were peace loving citizens.  They  denied  having held out any threat to Ram, Prasad or having or removed. his mango fruits.  The learned magistrate ordered the appellants to  furnish bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000 with two  sureties each  for  the same amount for one year, and in  default  to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months. On  appeal the Additional Sessions Judge Patna  reduced  the amount  of  bond to Rs. 1,000 with the sureties of  Rs.  500 each  for  a  period of one year.  In default  each  of  the appellants was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for  a period  of nine months.  The appeal of one Arjan Singh,  who had  also been ordered to be bound down, was  allowed.   The High  Court dismissed in limine the criminal revision  filed by the appellants. Mr. U. P. Singh on behalf of the appellants has contended in this  Court that as the matter relates to the year 1959,  it would not be aproper to bind down the appellants in the year 1972.   It  is pointed out that because of the  stay  orders granted  by  the different courts, no bond has so  far  been furnished by the appellants.  As against that, Mr. Bindra on behalf  of  the State has urged that this Court  should  not interfere with the order of the courts below. Under  section  107  of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  a Presidency  Magistrate, District Magistrate,  Sub-divisional Magistrate  or Magistrate of the first class may  require  a person to show cause

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

740 why  he  should not be ordered to execute a  bond,  with  or without  sureties,  for keeping the peace for a  period  not exceeding  one year as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix,  if such  Magistrate is informed that the said person is  likely to commit breach, of peace or disturb public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may occasion breach of peace, or disturb  public  tranquillity  and  if  the  Magistrate.  is further  of the opinion that there is sufficient ground  for proceeding  against that person.  The underlying  object  of the  section  is preventive and not penal.  The  section  is designed  to enable the magistrate to take measures  with  a view  to prevent commission of offences involving breach  of peace  or disturbance of public transquillity.  Wide  powers have  been  conferred on the magistrates specified  in  this section  and  as  the matter affects  the,  liberty  of  the subject  who has not been found guilty of an offence, it  is essential  that  the power should be exercised  strictly  in accordance with law. The question with which we are, concerned in this appeal  is whether because of an incident which took place in 1959, the appellants should be compelled in 1972 to furnish bonds  for keeping  the  peace,  for  that  would  be  the   necessary, consequence  of the dismissal of the appeal.  We may at  the outset  state  that we find it difficult to  accede  to  the submission made by Mr. Singh that once the period for  which bond  was  ordered  to be executed has  expired,  the  order becomes  nugatory and the proceedings under section  107  of the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  must  be  dropped.   The proceedings  under section 107 of the Code, in our  opinion, can continue despite the fact that the period for which  the bond  was  required  to be executed  has  expired.  To  hold otherwise  would  lead to the result  that  the  proceedings under  the section would have, to be dropped if  the  person proceeded  against succeeds in protecting  the  proceedings, even   though  the  apprehension  of  breach  of  peace   or disturbance of public tranquillity still persists.  At,  the same  time,  the  court is not precluded  from  taking  into account,, the subsequent events.  If the material on  record discloses that though there was a danger of breach of  peace it one time, because, of the happening of a subsequent event the danger of breach of peace has disappeared, the court can drop  the  proceedings and discharge  the  person  proceeded against.  Even in the absence, of some positive evidence  of reconciliation  between the opposing parties, if  the  court finds that since, the date of incident complained of, a very long  period has elapsed during the course of which  nothing untoward has happened. the court may well draw the inference that the danger of breach of peace has vanished. In  the present case the proceedings against the  appellants were  initiated  in  1959.  The  proceedings  relate  to  an incident also of 1959.  There is nothing to show that during the period of 13 741 years  since then, the appellants have done anything as  may cause  apprehension of breach of peace.  In the  context  of the  above  circumstances, we, are of the  opinion  that  it would not be expedient or essential to compel the appellants to  execute bonds under section 107 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure in the year 1972.  We therefore accept the  appeal and discharge the appellants. V. P. S.                   Appeal allowed. 742

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4