Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7 At this juncture, it will be very interesting to refer to the Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings that was initiated by Mr.Wynch, District Collector of Tirunelveli against Subramania Siva (A.1) and V.O.Chidambaram Pillai (A.2), which has been extensively quoted in the judgment dated 07.07.1908 by Arthur F.Pinhey Esq., Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C. No.1 of 1908, which relates to the trial of the duo for the offence under Section 124-A IPC and their eventual conviction and sentence. The circumstances under which the Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings was initiated is as under:

If the State Legislature by a resolution so requires, the State Government may, after consultation with the High Court, by notification, direct that—
a) References in sections 108, 109 and 110 to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall be construed as references to an Executive Magistrate;
17/40

http://www.judis.nic.in

b) References in sections 145 and 147 to an Executive Magistrate shall be construed as references to a Judicial Magistrate of the first class. 18 Section 107(1) Cr.P.C., as originally enacted, contemplated only execution of a bond and in the absence of the expression “with sureties”, one can legitimately infer that the person was required to execute bond without sureties. That is why, in Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the expression “without sureties” finds place. However, Section 107(1) Cr.P.C. was amended by Act 45 of 1978 and the expression “with or without sureties” was added in clause (1). But strangely, Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was left untouched. This resulted in a serious anomaly whereby a breach by a person executing a bond without sureties was covered by Section 122(1)(b), but, a more serious case of a breach by a person with sureties was left untouched. This led the Law Commission (headed by Justice K.K.Mathew) to devote an entire report (102 nd Report) in 1984, recommending an amendment to Section 122(1)(b). The Law Commission recommended the insertion of the words “with or without sureties” in Section 122(1)(b) in order to bring it in line with the 1978 Amendment to Section 107. The link between Section 107 and 122(1)(b) was clearly brought out in the following observation of the Commission in its 102nd Report:

4. As regards the second point about S. 16 of the City Police Act, I do not see how it takes away the rights under the Madras District Police Act, which as stated already is applicable to the police in the City of Madras.” (emphasis supplied) http://www.judis.nic.in

29 The issue can be looked at from yet another dimension too. It is beyond cavil that the proceedings under Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C. are judicial in nature. The law in this regard is well settled. Exactly a century ago, a Full Bench of this Court, in Yeluchuri Venkatachennaya and Others vs. Emperor7, noticed that the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. approximated to a regular trial under the Code. Speaking for the Court, Wallis, C.J. held:

36 Unlike the expression “breach of the peace”, where “subjectivity” is the basis, good behaviour rests on “objectivity”. All the clauses of Section 110 Cr.P.C., except clause (g), underpin the existence of a previous case. In fact, they 14 (1994) 3 SCC 440 http://www.judis.nic.in use the expression “habit / habitual” which is conspicuously missing in clause (g). Such a requirement is not there under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Section 110(e) Cr.P.C. which contemplates offences committed habitually involving breach of the peace cannot be used as a window to enter into Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C., for the simple reason that, Section 122 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. is predicated on the nature of the bond, viz., bond for breach of the peace and not on clause (e) of Section 110 Cr.P.C. Thus, textually and contextually, a bond for good behaviour can, by no stretch of imagination, be telescoped into Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.