Order. - The petnr. was served with a notice under S. 112, Cr. P. C., to show cause why he should not be directed to execute a bond to be of good behaviour under S. 110, Cr. P. C. for a period of three years. Along with the petnr. two other persons were also impleaded and served with similar notices and an enquiry M. C. No. 647/47 was started against the three persons by the Subdivisional Mag., Ghumusur. The Police filed a report under S. 110 (d), (e) and (f), Cr. P. C. against these three persons on 24-9-47 and cited 84 instances of acts of misbehaviour and offences alleged to have been committed or threatened to have been committed by one or the other of the persons named in the report covering a period of over twelve years commencing from 1935. The Police also cited 140 witnesses to be examined to prove the various acts of high-handedness alleged to have been committed at different times by these persons. The Mag. drew up proceedings on the 4th November in the following terms : "Perused the report of the S. I, of Police, Aska and it appears from the Police report that you (1) Krupasindhu Panigrahi (2) Dondia Gowdo, and (3) Bancha Palo of village Horodapadoro, P. S. Aska, within the criminal jurisdiction of this Ct., habitually commit theft, extortion, cheating, and mischief and other offences involving a breach of the piece and also are so desperate and dangerous as to render your being at large, without security, hazardous to the community as detailed in the police report (copy enclosed)." You are, therefore, required under S. 110 (a), (d), (e) and (f), Criminal P. C. to show cause by 11-11-1947 why you Krupasindhu Panigrahi should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 2000 with two sureties for like amount and Dondia Gowdo and Bancha Palo should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 500 etc . . . etc. . .." 2. Although the order recites that a copy of the Police report is enclosed it is asserted by the petnr. and it is not denied by the learned Advocate-General appearing for the Crown-that no such copy has been served upon the petnr. The petnr. appeared in due course and applied to the Deputy Mag. . . etc. . .." 2. Although the order recites that a copy of the Police report is enclosed it is asserted by the petnr. and it is not denied by the learned Advocate-General appearing for the Crown-that no such copy has been served upon the petnr. The petnr. appeared in due course and applied to the Deputy Mag. to take up his case separately and not to try him jointly with the two others as he apprehended that prejudice would be caused to him. He also prayed that his personal attendance may be waived and that he may be permitted to appear through a pleader as he was sick and was not able to attend the proceedings which were likely to occupy a long time. The Deputy Mag. dismissed his petn. and rejected both his prayers on the ground that the Police report showed that the petnr. and the two other persons charged with him were his associates and that there would be no prejudice or illegality in a joint trial. He rejected the petnr.s prayer for exemption from personal attendance on the ground that the petnr. not being an accused person, S. 540A, Criminal P. C. did not apply. It is against this order that the petnr. has now come up in revn. to this Ct. The petnr. also moved the Dist. Mag. before filing his revn. petn. in this Ct., and the Addl. Dist. Mag who heard his appln., has recommended to this Ct. that the order of the Deputy Mag. should be quashed and that a separate trial should be ordered as, in his opinion, a joint enquiry would be prejudicial to the persons proceeded against: 3. The case against the petnr. petn. in this Ct., and the Addl. Dist. Mag who heard his appln., has recommended to this Ct. that the order of the Deputy Mag. should be quashed and that a separate trial should be ordered as, in his opinion, a joint enquiry would be prejudicial to the persons proceeded against: 3. The case against the petnr. as it appears from the Police report, is that he is a rich landholder and money-lender in village Horodopadoro, under the jurisdiction of the Aska Police Station : "Since about 12 years he started Increasing and adding to his landed properties by making clandestine purchases from one party or other having disputes on lands and also made or attempted to make people quit their lands in his favour by putting them in fear of grievous assault and other kinds of mischief such as rendering them homeless, by setting fire to their houses and by assaulting them with the help of a set of ruffians maintained by him solely for the purpose and also by damaging and stealing their crops through the help of the same ruffians . . . Accused 2 and 3 and two mochis who were all persons of the most desperate and dangerous character were the principal henchmen of their leader, accused 1." It is then alleged that accused 2 and 3 committed "numerous instances of zulums such as setting fire to houses, cutting and carrying away crops from land, committing theft of other properties, assaulting persons, killing and maiming of cattle and of persons with whom their leader and employer had any dispute." The leader (referring to the petnr. before me) also singly committed high-handedness such as extorting documents, rendering persons homeless, by driving them from their houses, etc. It will be seen from the above that the petnr. himself is not accused of any of the acts falling within cls. (a), (d), (e) and (f) of S. 110. These acts are specifically attributed to the other two accused who are sought to be tried jointly with the petnr. So far as the petnr. himself is concerned, the acts of high handedness charged against him are "extorting documents, rendering persons homeless, and by driving them from their houses." If the Mag. (a), (d), (e) and (f) of S. 110. These acts are specifically attributed to the other two accused who are sought to be tried jointly with the petnr. So far as the petnr. himself is concerned, the acts of high handedness charged against him are "extorting documents, rendering persons homeless, and by driving them from their houses." If the Mag. who drew up proceedings against them under S. 110 had only oared to go through this Police Report he would have been able to discriminate the case against the petnr. from that of the rest, and he would not have fallen into the error of holding that joint trial is necessary in the interests of justice. Even according to the Police Report, the petnr. is described as "a leader and employer," and it is not suggested that he employed these persons to commit the offences sought to be proved against them. The specific allegation of being a "desperate and dangerous character" is made only against the other two persons who are roped in along with the petnr. It is well settled that the characteristic of being a desperate and dangerous character is a personal attribute and should be proved separately against every individual charged with that attribute. The Mag. appears to have gone further than even what the Police seek to prove inasmuch as he has drawn up proceedings under S. 110 (a) while the Police restricted their report to cl. (d), (e) and (f) of that section. It is also passing strange that the Deputy Mag. failed to notice that the evidence required to prove 84 instances extending over a period of 12 years is bound to be vague indefinite and conflicting, and that it would be impossible for any person called upon to meet the charge to decide which of the allegations have been made out and to what extent. The number of witnesses cited is equally formidable and the Police Report does not give the least inkling as to which of these allegations is going to be proved and by which bunch of witnesses. If the character of a person cannot be proved to be of the description contemplated under S. 110 by half a dozen witnesses, it cannot be established by 140 witnesses either. If the object of the Police was to overawe the petnr. If the character of a person cannot be proved to be of the description contemplated under S. 110 by half a dozen witnesses, it cannot be established by 140 witnesses either. If the object of the Police was to overawe the petnr. and, his alleged associates this purpose has been served admirably, but I quite fail to see both a Mag. will be able to analyse the evidence which is bound to be of the character merely of hearsay and suspicion and how he will be able to estimate the character of each of the accused persons. 4. Mr. K. Patnaik, appearing for the petnr. has placed before me a tabular statement of the cts alleged against the petnr. alone and those he is supposed to have been responsible for along with the two other accused persons. The specific acts attributed to the petnr . are Items 1, 12, 16, 18, 45, 47, 52, 66, 69, 70, 79 and 84 of the tabular statement. These acts range over a period of twelve years. (After discussing these items His Lordship proceeded.) 5. In spite of the fact that an enquiry under S. 110, Cr. P. C. is bound to be wide in its scope, I cannot understand how a person accused of such elastic, sprawling and pervasive charges as those cited against the petnr in this case can ever hope to meet them and convince a Ct. that he is not a threat to the community at large. Time and again the Cts. have registered their protest against a free and indiscriminate use of this section. Reported cases show that the Police appeal to this section for bringing down a person whom they otherwise cannot harass. Instead of investigating into particular offences and bringing the offender to book, recourse is had to the security sections in order to humble local dictators or oppressive money-lenders. The growing tendency of trying to humiliate persons who assume the role of local dictators instead of prosecuting them for substantive offences itself suggests that this loose practice constitutes a serious threat to fairness in our administration of justice. The rule of evidence laid down in S. 117 (4) makes it all the more difficult to try persons without prejudice to an innocent man. When the prosecution chooses to array a hotchpotch of acts described as threats and instigations" it is extremely difficult for a Mag. The rule of evidence laid down in S. 117 (4) makes it all the more difficult to try persons without prejudice to an innocent man. When the prosecution chooses to array a hotchpotch of acts described as threats and instigations" it is extremely difficult for a Mag. to control or analyse the evidence and to estimate its effect on each of the persons standing trial in proof of so sprawling a charge as "being a dangerous and desperate character." Evidence of bad reputation is often admissible only on the assumption that the person accused has a bad reputation and that he is an associate of the other persons. The result is that if the other two persons have a local bad reputation or are dangerous and desperate the mere inclusion of the petnr. as an associate of the other two petnrs. makes the entire evidence admissible against the petnr. There generally will be some evidence of wrong-doing by some of the persons but it is extremely difficult for an individual accused to make his own case stand on its own merits as Mags, are only too prone to believe that birds of the same feather flock together. It is therefore imperative to ascertain before permitting a joint trial that the birds belong to the same feather. According to the prosecution report, the petnr. is a rich landlord and owner of bus service and is otherwise highly respectable. According to the petnr. the present proceedings have been initiated by the Police at the instance of his political rivals. If therefore he chooses to dissociate himself from the two other accused jointly with him, and tries to throw the blame on the others, the inevitable consequence will follow that the other two will try to throw the entire blame on the petnr. A Ct. faced thus with mutual accusations and recriminations between persons standing their trial, is apt to hold that all the three are responsible for the acts of each one of them. The result will inevitably be that persons jointly tried often convict each other. If, on the other hand, the petnr. chooses to stand alone and is silent, he will be taken to have admitted the accusations made against him of his associates. In either event, the result will be disastrous to the petnr. and there cannot be a fair trial. The result will inevitably be that persons jointly tried often convict each other. If, on the other hand, the petnr. chooses to stand alone and is silent, he will be taken to have admitted the accusations made against him of his associates. In either event, the result will be disastrous to the petnr. and there cannot be a fair trial. I am in entire agreement with the observation of Walsh J., in Angnoo Singh v. Emperor, reported in A.I.R. (10) 1923 ALL. 35 : (24 Cr. L. J. 257) that it seems very hard- almost oppressive-to any set of defts. to charge them together unless the whole of the evidence against all of them is precisely the same. To the same effect is the case reported in Jai Rao v. Emperor, A I R (10) 1923 pat. 104: (23 Cr. L. J. 100), where it was laid down that a joint trial is not permissible unless there is evidence of something in the nature of a conspiracy. Ordinarily, under S. 110, Cr. P. C. every person has to be tried separately for the offences enumerated therein. Mr. Patnaik relied upon Deodhari v. Emperor, in A.I.R. (12) 1925 pat. 131 : (26 Cr. L. J. 738) where it was laid down that the evidence to prove a charge under S. 110 should not be vague generally and of a hearsay character and In re Rathinam Pillai, A.I.R. (25) 1938 Mad. 35: (39 Cr. L. J. 230) where Newsam J., generally laid down that a joint enquiry under S. 117 (5) is out of question when one charge at least is that two persons are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large hazardous to the community. There certainly can be no such intimate connection between two individuals in regard to their individual characteristics as to render them liable to joint inquisition. It was further held in that case that to apply S. 110 to local bosses and faction leaders is undoubtedly to abuse it. The section is intended to apply to criminal maniacs and desperados against whom the only weapon to be used is the weapon of public opinion. 6. I have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that the reference made by the Addl. Dist. Mag. that the joint enquiry against the petnr. The section is intended to apply to criminal maniacs and desperados against whom the only weapon to be used is the weapon of public opinion. 6. I have, therefore, arrived at the conclusion that the reference made by the Addl. Dist. Mag. that the joint enquiry against the petnr. along with the other two persons, cannot proceed, and that the police, if so advised, may initiate separate proceedings against the petnr., alone, should be accepted. 7. Mr. Patnaik also complained that the order drawn up by the Mag. is all too brief, vague and indefinite and does not give any clue to the petnr. as to the acts charged against him. An order under S. 112 is not a formal order but is intended to give sufficient notice to the individual against whom the order is made, of the accusation made against him. The section in specific terms says that the order shall set forth the substance of the information received. The Mag. who drew up the proceedings has entirely ignored that requirements of this section in so far as he has failed to set out the substance of the information before him. The failure to annex a copy of the Police report is itself a grave irregularity which, in the circumstances of this case, must be held to have vitiated the proceedings. The order does not comply with the provisions of the Code and is bad in law. For a similar case, reference may be made to Kutti Goundan v. Emperor, 47 m.l.j. 689: (A.I.R. (12) 1925 Mad, 189: 26 Cr. l.j. 673) and In re Krupasindhu Naik, 8 M.l.w. 416: (A.I.R. (6) 1918 Mad 219), wherein Kumaraswami J., observed that a notice under S. 110, Cri. P. C., must contain something more than a re-production of the clauses of that section. There should be sufficient indication of the time and place of the acts charged and sufficient detail which should enable the accused to know the facts that he has to meat. It should be remembered that the petnr. is put on his trial on information received behind his back, extending over a period of 12 years or more. There should be sufficient indication of the time and place of the acts charged and sufficient detail which should enable the accused to know the facts that he has to meat. It should be remembered that the petnr. is put on his trial on information received behind his back, extending over a period of 12 years or more. Had the proceedings started on a private complaint he would have been entitled to copy thereof, but in the case of a police report, such as the one placed before me, the petnr, gets no clue as to the dates when the persons in respect of whom, and the nature of the acts which one alleged to have been committed by him. I have no doubt in my mind that the notice served on the petnr. is bad in law and is of no effect. But whether that would justify the quashing of the proceedings altogether at this stage is a matter on which I am not prepared to hazard an opinion. There is no legal proceeding against the petnr. according to the view I have taken and the question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. Mr. Patnaik has therefore, very adroitly conceded that if and when proper proceedings are drawn up against the petnr. he will take the earliest opportunity of raising this question again and wanted to reserve liberty to move this Ct. for quashing of proceedings later. I think that this is the only reasonable course to adopt at present. 8. I should, however, like to observe that the Dist. Mag., or the Head of the Police who is responsible for the initiation of these proceedings should very seriously consider the propriety of clubbing together acts, real or imaginary, extending over such a long period and trying to prove them at great expense and waste of time. It is preposterous to suggest that a case cannot be proved except by examining as many as 140 witnesses. I shudder to think how long this enquiry will occupy if all the witnesses are to be examined, having regard to the leisurely way in which the Prosecuting Officers conduct even petty cases in the Cts. below. It is preposterous to suggest that a case cannot be proved except by examining as many as 140 witnesses. I shudder to think how long this enquiry will occupy if all the witnesses are to be examined, having regard to the leisurely way in which the Prosecuting Officers conduct even petty cases in the Cts. below. It will be the duty of the officers in charge of the prosecution to shift the evidence and reduce the number of witnesses to the minimum possible in the interests of fairness of trial and in order to save avoidable waste of time and money. The enquiry will now be confined to the case against Dandi Gowdo and Bancha Palo alone and if the prosecution ultimately decides to take action under S. 110, Cr. P. C. against the petnr. also, they must await the result of the enquiry against Dandia Gowdo and Bancha Palo. It may perhaps be that as a result of the enquiry against these two persons the prosecution may find that the evidence against the petnr. is too exiguous to sustain an order under S. 110. That however, is a matter for the prosecutor to decide. So far as this revn. petn. is concerned the order will be that the notice under S. 112, Cr. P. C. served on the petnr. if bad in law and the interim bond taken from him should be discharged; that any enquiry under S. 110 against him should be separately undertaken and should await the result of the enquiry against the two principal accused, who, according to the Police, are desperate and dangerous characters. Subject to this modification this revn. is allowed. Revision allowed.