Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Dr. Ambati Balaji vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 February, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(1)ALD(CRI)485, 2000(1)ALT(CRI)555, I(2001)DMC97
Author: Vaman Rao
Bench: Vaman Rao
ORDER Vaman Rao, J.
1. Heard both sides.
2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of show-cause notice dated 27.12.1999 purported to have been issued under Section 109 of Cr.P.C. by the Joint Controller and Additional District Magistrate, Kakinada to the petitioner herein directing him to appear in person before the said Additional District Magistrate for offering their explanation why they should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties undertaking to be of the good behaviour for a period of one year.
3. A perusal of the impugned notice would show that it is a shocking case of exercising powers for which there is no basis. The impugned show-cause notice specifically mentions that it has been issued under Section 109 of Cr.P.C. Section 109 of Cr.P.C is reproduced below for ready reference.
"109. Security for good behaviour from suspected persons : When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person taking precautions to conceal his presence and that there is reason to believe that he is doing so with a view to committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may in the manner, hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties, for his good behaviour for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit."
4. This provision enables an Executive Magistrate to issue a show-cause notice for executing a bond when he receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction, a person taking precautions to conceal his presence and that there is a reason to believe that he is doing so with a view to committing a cognizable offence.
5. The contents of the notice not even remotely relate to the requirements under Section 109 of Cr.P.C. However it may be presumed that the notice might have been issued under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows :
"110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders -When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who,-
(a) is by a habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger; or
(b) is by a habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen; or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property; or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under Section 498-A, or Section 489-D of that Code; or
(e) habitually commits, or attempt to commit, or abets the commission of, offence, involving a breach of the peace; or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of-
(i) any offence under one or more or the following Acts, namely :
(a) The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
(b) The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
(c) The Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952.
(d) The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
(e) The Essential Commodities Act, 1955. {0 The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955.
g) The Customs Act, 1962.
(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption; or
(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community.
such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit."
6. The facts as disclosed in the show-cause notice would show that the petitioner was involved in the offence of dowry harassment and abetted the commission of suicide (under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC) and it mentions that it was apprehended that the petitioner may commit similar offences in future also.
7. Under Section 110 of Cr.P.C, an Executive Magistrate may require a person to show-cause notice why a bond should not be executed who is a habitual robber, house breaker, thief or forger; a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen property or habitually commits or attempts to commit or abets the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief etc., or habitually commits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of any offence under The Drugs and Cosmetics Acts, The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, The Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, The Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 or The Customs Act; or any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption. It also requires that such notice may be issued to a person if he/she is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazard to the community. The petitioners having been involved in a 'dowry harassment case', it is apprehended that they may commit similar offences in future also. The notice purports to be based on an apprehension that the petitioner having been involved in dowry harassment case and abetment of the commission of suicide, may commit similar offences in future also.
8. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is based on the fact that the petitioner as facing charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. It is beyond one's comprehension how one can habitually commit offences under Section 498-A of I.P.C. or one under Section 306 of I.P.C. This appears to be a blatant instance of non-application of mind which has vitiated the impugned notice. There is no basis for issuance of such show-cause notice under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. There is no escape from quashing the impugned notice which -is accordingly quashed.