JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the non- petitioner No. 1. Nobody has appeared on behalf of non-petitioner. No. 2 2. I have gone through the record of the Criminal Case No. 188/1983 Ram Das v. Bhawani Shanker and Ors. pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur. It appears that non-petitioner No. 2 Ram Das filed a complaint on 26-4-1983 in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur. The complaint was later on transferred to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur vide order dated 16th May, 1983. On 5-2-1983 another complaint was filed by Ram Das in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur and that complaint was sent to the Station House officer Police Station Amba Mata under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the basis of that complaint Police registered a case under Sections 452, 427, 147, 149, 109 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and commenced investigation. After investigation a final report was submitted by the Police under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur. On perusal of that report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur took cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code against Manzoor Ali, Bhawani Shanker, O.P. Srivastava, Abdul Karim and Shesh Mal Phadagaria. The order taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences was passed on 25th May, 1983. 3. During the pendency of the case an application was moved before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur praying that the case be dropped because sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been obtained for prosecuting the accused who were Public servants. That application was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur vide order dated 24th March, 1992. 4. In his complaint dated 5th February, 1983 it was alleged that in the city of Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal and Kishan Lal had constructed a house on Plot No. 306 situated in Kalbeliya colony and that plot was purchased by them by means of registered deed about 2 years before the alleged incident. 4. In his complaint dated 5th February, 1983 it was alleged that in the city of Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal and Kishan Lal had constructed a house on Plot No. 306 situated in Kalbeliya colony and that plot was purchased by them by means of registered deed about 2 years before the alleged incident. It was further alleged that on 4th February, 1983 at about 11.30 A.M. accused Nos. 1,2, and 4 namely Shri Manzoor Ali, Shri Bhawani Shanker and Abdul Karim accompanied by 20 or 25 labourers who were armed with Sabal, Gaitee and Phawadas entered the house of complainant in an unlawful manner and started demolishing the constructions made there in and the goods which were placed inside the house were also thrown away and this act caused a loss of Rs. 16,000 to the complainant. In Para 5 of the complaint it was alleged that when the wife of the complainant raised objection to the demolition of the premises accused Nos. 1,2 and 4 forcibly turned out the complainant's wife and children out of the house and told that they were complying with the orders of accused Nos. 3 and 5. On the same day at about 2 P.M. when the complainant reached his house he come to know about the occurrence and by that time the accused persons and the labourers had already departed. 5. A bare perusal of the complaint filed by Shri Ram Das shows that the petitioner O.P. Srivastava was not present at the spot when the alleged demolition of the premises took place. There is not even as iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioner Shri. O.P. Srivastava was one of those persons who went to the house of the complainant to demolish the house nor he was one of those persons who took part in the commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned, Public Prosecutor has rightly conceded that unless the presence of the accused at the spot where the alleged offences were committed is established he cannot be fastened with any liability under Sections 147, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned, Public Prosecutor has rightly conceded that unless the presence of the accused at the spot where the alleged offences were committed is established he cannot be fastened with any liability under Sections 147, 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. I fail to understand how the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur proceeded against the petitioner Shri O.P. Srivastava when on the face of the complaint he was not present at the spot and he did not take any part in the commission of alleged offences. 7. It would not be out of place to mention here that personal liberty of a citizen is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed by the Constitution and no person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. This right to life and personal liberty would be completely meaningless if the right to live in peace is not considered an integral part of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and in the context of litigation no person should be impleaded as a defendant or ah accused unless there are sufficient ground to implead him. Whenever any person in proceeded under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code his personal liberty is partly curtailed. Under Section 204 warrant of arrest may be issued against him and he may be arrested. He is bound to appear on all the dates of hearing and in the event of non-appearance he has to face arrest and custody and then to face a long protracted trial. Being impleaded as an accused by issue of process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code definitely results in certain social and monitory consequences and still more important is the consequence that an important portion of the span of his life is spent in going and coming to the Court. Therefore, it would be useful to re-call the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi and Ors. that those who feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of what they conceive to be their duty, must strictly and scrupulously observe the forms and rules of the law". that those who feel called upon to deprive other persons of their personal liberty in the discharge of what they conceive to be their duty, must strictly and scrupulously observe the forms and rules of the law". Under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate has the power to issue process against a person who appears to him to be involved in the commission of alleged offences but this power is not absolute. It is subject to the fulfilment of the condition that there must be sufficient ground to proceed against him. The Criminal Procedure Code does not define what these sufficient grounds must be but in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution it is not difficult to infer what the sufficient ground must be, whenever there is a discretion and the exercise of the discretion results in a classification and some persons are left out and while others are included in a class which is to be given certain treatment, a discrimination occurs and this discrimination must satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. .It is well established that in order a classification may be permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution there must be an object, an intelligible differentia and a rational nexus between the object and the differentia. These three things are questions of fact and they must be in existence in order the classification may be held to be in valid terms of Article 14. The object the differentia and the rational nexus must be facts, appears to be the mandate of Article 14. They cannot be permitted to be fictitious. The object of the criminal law is to punish the offenders and, therefore, this object is already present in the provisions of the Penal Code. The intelligible differentia which can be used to distinguish those who are proceeded under Section 204 and those who are not to be proceeded under Section 204 is the guilt or in other words the fact that the former have committed the alleged offence and the later have not committed an alleged offence. Commission of offence/offences which is to be used as a differentia for selecting a few persons for impleading them as accused in a criminal trial must, therefore, be an existing fact and not a fiction. Commission of offence/offences which is to be used as a differentia for selecting a few persons for impleading them as accused in a criminal trial must, therefore, be an existing fact and not a fiction. This shows that the Magistrate must satisfy himself that the material placed before him discloses sufficient grounds to presume that the accused against whom he is going to proceed under Section 204 has committed the alleged offence. It requires the application of judicial mind and viewed in this light the Magistrate while conduction an enquiry for the purpose of Section 204 cannot act in a mechanical manner. In this case the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind at all to the complaint filed by Shri Ram Das. A bare perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioner Shri O.P. Srivastava was not present at the spot. He did not enter the house of the complainant nor he caused any damage to the premises personally nor he was present there to commit, any mischief or to instigate. In these circumstances there was absolutely no reason for presuming that Shri O.P. Srivastava has committed the offences of which cognizance was taken by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur. 8. With the pious hope that in future the Magistrate will act more cautiously keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Delhi (Supra), I deem it fit to quash the order dated 25th May, 1983 by which process was ordered to be issued against the petitioner O.P. Srivastava. The order so far as it is concerned with other accused will stand and I order accordingly. The petition is disposed of in above words. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur for necessary action along with the original record within a period of 15 days.Petition Allowed *******