# [1973] 1 S.C.R. 738

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 738
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 932 of 1967
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1973-1-s-c-r-738-5710
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

.738
RAM NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS
J::.
STATE OF BIHAR
July 28. 1972
lI. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
Code of-CrimillCI/ Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 101-Lapse of time
hefu,'een date of incident and ·dispos'G.Z of proceedings-Danger of breach
of peace non.existent-Expediency of r,equiring bonds under section.
.
Section 107, Cr. P. C. is designed to enable the Magistrate to take
measures with a view to prevent commission of offences inV\Jlving breach
of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity.
It is not correct to .ay
that once the per'iod for which the bond was ordered to be executed had
expired the order becomes nugatory. because. it would lead to the re>ult
that the proceedings under ·the section would have to be dropped if the
person prodileded against succeeds in protracting the proceedin~s even
though the apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public Iran·
quillity still persists.
[740B-Fl
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 per~on proceeded against.
Even in the absencle of positive evidence
of reconciliation between the oprosing 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 infercn..:.c
th<it the danger of breach of peace has vanished.
[740-.HJ
In the present c'ase, the appellants were ordered in 1959 to fu,nish
bonds under the section.
The amount of the bonds was reducecl by the
appellate court.
A revision by the appellants to the High Court against
the order to furnish the bonds \\'as dismissed.
The bonds, ho\Ve\'er. 'Vere
not exec.uted be~au<e of stay orders passed by the courts.
Th<. appeal
against the High Court's order was disposed of by this Court in 1972, and
during the U 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-Bl
Therefore, it was not expedient to compel thcqi to execute the bonds.
CRLMINAL 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. Sfn[fh, for the appellants.
N. S. Bindra and R. C. Prasad, for the respondent.

## Text

.738
RAM NARAIN SINGH AND OTHERS
J::.
STATE OF BIHAR
July 28. 1972
lI. D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
Code of-CrimillCI/ Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 101-Lapse of time
hefu,'een date of incident and ·dispos'G.Z of proceedings-Danger of breach
of peace non.existent-Expediency of r,equiring bonds under section.
.
Section 107, Cr. P. C. is designed to enable the Magistrate to take
measures with a view to prevent commission of offences inV\Jlving breach
of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity.
It is not correct to .ay
that once the per'iod for which the bond was ordered to be executed had
expired the order becomes nugatory. because. it would lead to the re>ult
that the proceedings under ·the section would have to be dropped if the
person prodileded against succeeds in protracting the proceedin~s even
though the apprehension of breach of peace or disturbance of public Iran·
quillity still persists.
[740B-Fl
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 per~on proceeded against.
Even in the absencle of positive evidence
of reconciliation between the oprosing 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 infercn..:.c
th<it the danger of breach of peace has vanished.
[740-.HJ
In the present c'ase, the appellants were ordered in 1959 to fu,nish
bonds under the section.
The amount of the bonds was reducecl by the
appellate court.
A revision by the appellants to the High Court against
the order to furnish the bonds \\'as dismissed.
The bonds, ho\Ve\'er. 'Vere
not exec.uted be~au<e of stay orders passed by the courts.
Th<. appeal
against the High Court's order was disposed of by this Court in 1972, and
during the U 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-Bl
Therefore, it was not expedient to compel thcqi to execute the bonds.
CRLMINAL 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. Sfn[fh, 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,
wher-~by 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 re.spect of
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
R. N. SINGH V. BIHAR (Khanna, J.)
739
plot No. 23 situated in village Deayapur in District Patna. Proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Proc~dure
were taken in september, 1958 because of th.at dispu1le.
In October, 1959 dispute again arose between the parties because of
the alleged breaking of the idol of Durga by some of th~ 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 )'·as 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 appellant>.
it was further stated, used to carry lathis and held out threats to
Ram Prasad.
The learned magistrate sent that application
to
the police.
The police then submitted a report and t\\'Ll cross
cases were started against the opposite parties under scctioa 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 thev were peace loving
citizens.
They denied! having held out anv threat to Ram Pra.sad
or having removed his mango fruits.
The
learned m:igistratc
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 Jud)!~ Patna reduce(! th~
amount of bond to Rs. 1.000 with the sureties of Rs. 500 e3ch
for a period of one year.
In default each of the appellafas wa!
ordered to undergo simple imprisonment1 for a period ~f ninei
months.
The appeal of one Arjan Singh, who had also been
ordered to be bound down. was allowed.
The High Cotlrt 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 l 9i2. It
is p0inted out that because of the
stay orders granted by
the different courts, no bond has so far been furnished by the appellants.
A~ 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 I 07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate
0r Magistrate of the first class may JCequire a person to show cause
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 1 S.C:.K.
why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without
suretie-s, for keeping the peace for a period not exceecling orie year
as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix, if such Magistrate is informed
that the said person is lil:ely to commit breach of peace or disturb
public tiranquillity 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 pre'lent
commission of offer.ces 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 guility of an
offence, it is e-ssential that the power should be exercised strictly
in accordance with Jaw.
The question with which we are cor.cerned 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 t11c 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 submfssion made by Mr. Singh
that -Once the period for which .Pond was ordered to be executed
hGS expired, the order becomes
nugatory and the proceedings
under section 10 7 of the Code of Criwinal Procedure must be
dropped.
The proceedings under section I 07 of the Code, in
our opinion, ·can continue. despite the fact that the period for
which the bond was r~quired! to be execu~d 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
.1gainst succeeds in protacting the proceedings, even though the
a pprehcnsion of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquilJ.fty uill perS'ists.
At the• s'arne time, the court is not precluded
from taking into account· the subsequent events.
Jf"the material
on record discloses that though there was a danger of breach of
peace
~t one time, because of the happening of a subsequent
event the danger of brc<ich of peace has disappeared, the court
can drop the proceedin11s and
discharge the person
proreeded
against.
Even in the absence of some positive evidence of reconciliation between the opposin!! parties, if the court finds that
since the date of incident complained of, a very long period ha5
efapsed during the course of which nothing untowards has happened, th~ court m'lv well draw the inference that the dane;er of
breach c.f peace has vanished.
Jn the present case the proceedings agains~ the appellants were
initiated in 1959.
The proceedings relat" to an incident also.of
1959.
There is nothing to show that during the period of 13
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
R. N, SINGH v. BIHAR (Khanna, J,)
741
years since then, 'the appellants have done anything
as
may
cause apprehension of breach of peace.
In the c·ontext. of the
abJve circumstances, we are of the ~inion that it would not be
eKpedient 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 app~al and discharge th~ appellants.
V. P. S.
A ppeai a!luwed.
"