( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by eighteen (18) residents of Gadwal Town under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P. C.) to quash first information report in crime no. 21 of 2005 of Town Police Station, Gadwal. The case was registered on a complaint given by none other than the Sub Divisional executive Magistrate-Cum-Revenue divisional Officer, Gadwal on 23-1-2005 at 23. 00 hrs. and also based on three other incidents. A reading of the petition, the First i nformation Report and the relevant file would show the following events leading to registration of crime No. 21 of 2005. ( 2 ) AFTER death of Akkala Saibaba, who was Municipal Chairman of Gadwal, his wife smt. Akkala Rama Saibaba was elected as chairperson. Presumely, at her instance, gadwal Municipality initiated action to erect the statue of late Akkala Saibaba on the main road at Rajiv Chowk, Gadwal. Sri G. Vijay kumar, filed a writ petition being W. P. No. 6764 of 2003 before this Court challenging the action of the Municipality on the ground that erection of the statue without permission from competent authority is illegal. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 12-8-2003 directing the Municipality that the proposed statue shall not be installed in any place within the limits of Gadwal Municipality. The present chairperson of Municipality, Smt. Akkala Rama Saibaba moved this Court by filing a review petition being rev. W. P. M. P. No. 27846 of 2004. By order dated 18-11-2004, this Court allowed the review petition modifying the earlier order to the effect that the statue of late Akkala saibaba, ex-Municipal Chairman may be erected at any place in Gadwal Municipality otherthan Rajiv Chowk of main road, Gadwal. It is the case of the petitioners that the chairperson and others, thereafter erected the statue in the premises of Municipal Office on 16-1 -2005 but the same was removed as per the orders of the Revenue Divisional officer dated 19-1-2005 and the statue is lying in the Office of Mandal Revenue Officer, gadwal. When the statue was being removed, smt. Akkala Rama Saibaba and others obstructed the officials and tried to commit cognizable offence. All of them were arrested under Section 151 of Cr. P. C. , and later released on personal sureties. When the statue was being removed, smt. Akkala Rama Saibaba and others obstructed the officials and tried to commit cognizable offence. All of them were arrested under Section 151 of Cr. P. C. , and later released on personal sureties. In connection with the same episode, crime No. 9 of 2005 under Sections 147, 323, 353 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was also registered against unidentified persons on an allegation that they pelted stones on the officials. ( 3 ) ON 22-1 -2005, the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 allegedly performed "rail-roko" programme and tried to commit cognizable offence. As a preventive measure, police arrested them and released on personal bond in crime no. 5 of 2005 at Railway Police Station, mahaboobnagar. On 23-1-2005, the Revenue divisional Officer, Smt. T. K. Ramamani gave a complaint to S. H. O. , P. S. , Gadwal (Urban) against thirteen (13) persons informing that they obstructed her from performing her regular official duties and criminally restricted her movement and boarded into the jeep in front of Bal Bhavan, at 10. 00 p. m. , on 23-1 -2005. The said complaint was registered as crime No. 14 of 2005 of Town Police Station, gadwal under Sections 147, 341, 353 read with Section 149 of IPC. According to the first Information Report in crime No. 21 of 2005, on 4-2-2005, Sub Inspector of Police, gadwal Town, received reliable information that the petitioner No. 18 and other petitioners are planning to commit theft of the statue of akkala Saibaba, which was kept in the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, and to erect it at Municipal Office premises of Gadwal. But no crime was registered and the Inspector only made an entry in the general diary of town Police Station, Gadwal. On 11-2-2005 at 11. 00 hrs, one Smt. T. Vijaya Sree, Town planning Supervisor of Gadwal Municipality lodged a complaint with Town P. S. , that akkala Rama Saibaba, Municipal chairperson and her followers are harassing her and due to their harassment, she cannot perform her routine duties and asked for legal protection. An entry was made in the general diary to that effect by the Officer-in-charge of police station. Based on the complaints and entries in the general diary, crime No. 21 of 2005 was registered under section 107 of Cr. An entry was made in the general diary to that effect by the Officer-in-charge of police station. Based on the complaints and entries in the general diary, crime No. 21 of 2005 was registered under section 107 of Cr. P. C. , and a report was submitted to the Court of Executive First class Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for necessary action. ( 4 ) THE Sub Divisional Magistrate and revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal, issued summons dated 18-2-2005 purporting to be under Section 107 of Cr. P. C. to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners are before this Court. The summons issued by Revenue divisional Officer reads as under: no. C/193/05 Dated: 18-2-2005 summons (Under Section 107 Cr. P. C.) to the Sub Inspector of Police, gadwal Town. VERSUS respondents: 1. Sri G. Rajashekar Reddy S/o Satya narayana Reddy age (35) years, Advocate r/o Gadwal and (17) others all R/o Gadwal town. (List enclosed) (THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF police GADWAL TOWN PS) whereas the information laid by the Sub inspector of Police, Gadwal Town that the respondents (1 to 18) are the followers of different political parties/different groups, there is every possibility of creating Law and order problem in the Gadwal Town and indulging into illegal activities to maintain law and Order in the town. There is every likelihood to indulge in offences by attacking another groups in the town and they create law and Order problems in the Gadwal Town and Mandal. They may create Law and Order problem. The respondents are likely to commit a breach of the p eace disturb the public tranquility and with an anticipated of any wrongful act that they may be probably occasion a breach of the peace. Respondents Cr. No. Sections r-1 to 18 21/2005 107 Cr. P. C. In the above circumstances I am satisfied with the information laid before me the Sub inspector of Police, Gadwal Town and I opinioned that there is likelihood of peace in the Town. Therefore, you are directed to appear before the undersigned on: 4-3-2005 at 11-00 a. m. at Sub Collectors Office, Gadwal and to show cause as to why personal bond should not be executed for Rs. 20,000-00 each with two sureties for equal amount. Dated this the Eighteenth day of february, 2005. Therefore, you are directed to appear before the undersigned on: 4-3-2005 at 11-00 a. m. at Sub Collectors Office, Gadwal and to show cause as to why personal bond should not be executed for Rs. 20,000-00 each with two sureties for equal amount. Dated this the Eighteenth day of february, 2005. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER and SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, gadwal ( 5 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, made the following submission. The facts and circumstances do not warrant the registration of a case under Section 107 of Cr. P. C. The summons issued by the Sub Divisional magistrate is vague, devoid of any details and is contrary to Section 111 read with section 113 of Cr. PC. The proceedings initiated by Sub Divisional Magistrate and revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal are vitiated by bias and contrary to Section 479 of cr. P. C. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, sri C. Nageswara Rao, submits that the case on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, gadwal has been transferred to Narayanpet and therefore the proceedings are valid. The proceedings were initiated under Sec. 107 of cr. P. C. , as there is a likelihood of the petitioners attacking other group opposing the erection of the statue of Akkala Saibaba, ex. Municipal Chairman and therefore there is no illegality in the proceedings. Lastly, he would urge that the petitioners were issued summons to show cause as to why they should not execute personal bond and at this stage interference under Section 482 of cr. P. C. , is not called for. ( 7 ) THE case file in relation to crime No. 14 of 2005 and the relevant file (C/193/05) from the Office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dealing with the proceedings under Sec. 107 of Cr. P. C. , are placed before this Court. This would disclose that there are two warring groups in Gadwal which are at loggerheads over the contentious issue of erecting the statue of Akkala Saibaba, Ex. Municipal chairman of Gadwal. There are complaints and counter complaints. There are cases filed by those who are supporting the erection of statue and those who are opposing such move. One group is led by the present chairperson, Smt. Rama Saibaba, wife of late Akkala Saibaba and another group is led by one Sri G. Vijay Kumar. Municipal chairman of Gadwal. There are complaints and counter complaints. There are cases filed by those who are supporting the erection of statue and those who are opposing such move. One group is led by the present chairperson, Smt. Rama Saibaba, wife of late Akkala Saibaba and another group is led by one Sri G. Vijay Kumar. Cases are also filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal against the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Smt. T. Ramamani, under Sections 323, 324, 327, 356, 379, 201, 408, 420, 447 ,499,107, 504 and 509 of IPC by Akkala Rama Saibaba. This is the background in which the Sub Inspector of police, Gadwal sent a report to the Sub-Divisional magistrate for initiating action under section 107 of Cr. P. C. Based on the same, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued summons on 18-2-2005. It is very curious that the main incident that prompted the Sub- inspector of police to submit report to the executive Magistrate is the complaint dated 23-1-2005 given by the same Executive magistrate, Smt. T. K. Ramamani, leaving two insignificant entries in the general diary aside. In this factual matrix, can it be said that the Revenue Divisional Officer was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 107 of cr. P. C. ? ( 8 ) IN Madhu Limaye v. S. D. M. , Monghy the Constitution Bench of Seven Judges of the Supreme Court considered the question of constitutional validity of Section 144 of chapter VIII of Cr. P. C. , 1898. Chapter VIII of cr. P. C. , 1898 Code dealt with the prevention of offences. Sections 107-110 and 112-119 are also on similar lines as they appear in the new Code, 1973. Analysing the scope of section 107 of Cr. P. C. , and the procedure to be followed by the magistrates, the Supreme court held as under: the section is aimed at persons, who cause a reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility. This is an instance of preventive justice which the courts are intended to administer. This provision like the preceding one is in aid of orderly society and seeks to nip in the bud conduct subversive of the peace and public tranquility. For this purpose magistrates are invested with large judicial discretionary powers for the preservation of public peace and order. This is an instance of preventive justice which the courts are intended to administer. This provision like the preceding one is in aid of orderly society and seeks to nip in the bud conduct subversive of the peace and public tranquility. For this purpose magistrates are invested with large judicial discretionary powers for the preservation of public peace and order. Therefore the justification for such provisions is claimed by the State to be in the function of the State which embraces not only the punishment of offenders but, as far as possible, the prevention of offences. . . The procedure begins with S. 112. It requires that the Magistrate acting under s. 107 shall make an order in writing, settling forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. Since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility at his hands. Although the section speaks of the substance of the information it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information bodily but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word substance means the essence of the most important parts of the information. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court also held (in paragraph 43 of the said judgment) that the powers of the magistrate should be strictly construed as exercise of power by the magistrate affects the liberty of a person. Therefore, when the magistrate issues a show cause notice under Section 111 and sends the summons as required under section 113 of Cr. P. C. , there should be information before the magistrate that any person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility. The information should be based on some objective material and does not depend on subjective whims and fancies of the informant or the magistrate ordering a show cause notice and summons. P. C. , there should be information before the magistrate that any person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility. The information should be based on some objective material and does not depend on subjective whims and fancies of the informant or the magistrate ordering a show cause notice and summons. Further, if there are already cases registered against those to whom summons is issued and such cases are pending, ordinarily it is not a case, which falls under Chapter VIII of cr. P. C. (Security for keeping peace and for good behaviour ). ( 10 ) THE Courts have applied the principles governing the exercise of powers under section 107 of Cr. P. C. , by the magistrate and wherever the summons or show cause notice was issued after initiating the proceedings on some vague allegations, the proceedings were struck down. Wherever the particulars of information, which leads the magistrate to come to the conclusion that persons are likely to commit breach are not given, the Courts have struck down. Likewise wherever the substance of information was not set forth or the amount of bond to be executed is not mentioned, the Courts have held such show cause notices to be defective. As seen from the summons except reproducing the words and phrases mechanically no details are given in the summons. Mere assertion or allegation that named persons belonging to political parties of different groups are likely to indulge in illegal activities detrimental to maintain, law and order or that such named persons are likely to commit breach of peace and disturb the public tranquility, are not sufficient to confer any power on the Executive Magistrate to issue summons under Section 107 of cr. P. C. , read with Sections 111 and 113 of cr. P. C. The submission of the learned Public prosecutor based on the four causes in the first Information Report/report of the Sub inspector would by themselves, do hot attract the provisions of Chapter VIII of Cr. P. C. , because as discussed infra, action was initiated with biased mind. Therefore, it must be held that the proceedings issued against the petitioners are unsustainable. ( 11 ) IT is most basic principle of natural justice that no person shall be judge of his/her own cause; name debet esse judex in propria sua causa. P. C. , because as discussed infra, action was initiated with biased mind. Therefore, it must be held that the proceedings issued against the petitioners are unsustainable. ( 11 ) IT is most basic principle of natural justice that no person shall be judge of his/her own cause; name debet esse judex in propria sua causa. This principle is adumbrated in Section 479 of Cr. P. C. , which reads as under: 479. Case in which Judge or magistrate is personally interested:- no Judge or Magistrate shall except with the permission of the Court to which may appeal lies from his Court, try or commit for trial any case to or in which he is a party, or personally interested, and no Judge or Magistrate shall hear an appeal from any judgment or order passed or made by himself. Explanation:- A Judge or Magistrate shall not be deemed to be a party to or personally interested in any case by reason only that he is concerned therein in a public capacity, or by reason only that he has viewed the place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed or any other place in which any other transaction material to the case is alleged to have occurred and made an inquiry in connection with the case. ( 12 ) THE above provision disables a magistrate to try or commit for trial in case in which the magistrate is personally interested. A magistrate shall not try his own cause, is the binding principle on every magistrate and a judge; whether trial judge or appellate judge. The provision not only disqualifies magistrate to try a case when he is personally interested but also prohibits such magistrate from trying such a case. In such an event as a necessary corollary under Section 461 of cr. P. C. , the entire proceedings would be vitiated. In the very nature of things under chapter VIII of Cr. P. C. it is the Executive magistrate who is competent to direct an anti social person to execute a bond with sureties for good behaviour for a specified period. This, a magistrate may do only on receipt of information in respect of a person within the local jurisdiction limits of magistrate. P. C. it is the Executive magistrate who is competent to direct an anti social person to execute a bond with sureties for good behaviour for a specified period. This, a magistrate may do only on receipt of information in respect of a person within the local jurisdiction limits of magistrate. If the magistrate himself or herself is the informant or the victim of alleged anti social activities or attempts to contravene the specified provisions mentioned in Sections 108 and 110 of Cr. P. C. , can it be said that the magistrate exercised the power validly? ( 13 ) ANY order, which has proven elements of influence of bias and prejudice, weuld be unsustainable in law. However, all cases of bias are not on the same footing. The orders influenced by real bias or real apprehension of bias come under close scrutiny whereas the cases of suspicion of bias fall in different category. Again all original orders cannot be subjected to suffer a reversal at the hands of appellate authority unless it is shown that the original authority was influenced by bias and prejudice only and rendered the decision de hors the facts and law presented for decision. This is because the decision maker; it is presumed - cannot be totally unbiased to the cause and the decision maker cannot be without some prejudice, which inhere in him/ her by reason of upbringing, exposure to society and the likes and dislikes of the decision maker. One should remember that if bias prejudice and partiality are defined as to mean total absence of preconceptions in the minds of the judge then there can be no person functioning as a judge without bias, partiality and prejudice. Every human being is born with predispositions and an infant too has them. During the course of formal and informal education, one develops attitudes which precede reasoning in a particular instance which by definition are "prejudices". Therefore not all cases of bias can be nullified on such a ground. ( 14 ) THE principle "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done is part of indian Law and the criminal judicial process, in which, an Executive Magistrate, a Judicial magistrate, or a Sessions Judge or a High court judge becomes integral part of the criminal judicial system. ( 14 ) THE principle "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done is part of indian Law and the criminal judicial process, in which, an Executive Magistrate, a Judicial magistrate, or a Sessions Judge or a High court judge becomes integral part of the criminal judicial system. A judge who informs the commission of a crime to investigating agency cannot try the case. A judge who has personal interest cannot judge the cause when it is brought before him/her. Ordinarily, such a judge must recluse from the proceedings. The Courts have drawn distinction between the cases where a judge has pecuniary interest and those cases where judge has non-pecuniary interest. In cases where judge has pecuniary interest, the courts have applied the rule of bias strictly. Doctrine of necessity, of late, has been applied in limited number of cases though. For example, if a judge holds some shares in a limited company, in given circumstances of informing the parties before the Court, it is permissible for the judge to try the case. But when the judge or one of his relatives have vitally interested in a pecuniary cause, the tradition requires such a judge to withdraw from the case. ( 15 ) IN Wade s Administrative Law (H. W. R. Wade and C. F. Forsyth : Ninth Indian edition 2005 : P. 456), the principle is summarized as under: accordingly it became the rule that any direct pecuniary interest, however small, was a disqualification, and this rule was applied rigorously. Indeed, in a prominent case, the House of Lords has affirmed that the principle of automatic disqualification in fact extends beyond pecuniary and proprietary interests. It applies equally where the judge is himself a party or has a relevant interest in the subject matter of the litigation, even if he has no financial interest in its outcome. ( 16 ) EVERY decision which is vitiated by bias or real apprehension of bias (not mere suspicion), is however, not void but voidable. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the cause itself is brought before the Court in which the determining authority had a definite role, the higher Courts can always stop further action as it would be a futile exercise to nullify any decision on the ground that it became voidable by reason of biased decision. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If the cause itself is brought before the Court in which the determining authority had a definite role, the higher Courts can always stop further action as it would be a futile exercise to nullify any decision on the ground that it became voidable by reason of biased decision. In public law cases, however, the High Court exercising different jurisdiction cannot restrain the public authority for exercising statutory and non-statutory executive powers on a suspicion that he is likely to act with bias. Same would also be the case when the High Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India or other related provisions conferring the power of supervision and superintendence on it, merely on the ground that the presiding judge of a particular court is biased or predetermined. Such a ground for stopping the proceeding judge to proceed further the case is pressed into service only in rare cases and not as a matter of routine. ( 17 ) IN Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of assam, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 556 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1898 (Section 479 of Cr. P. C. , 1973 ). The words personally interested appearing in the provision were interpreted to mean that acting otherwise than in public capacity. In the said case, the appellant was prosecuted for contravening Assam Food grains Control Act, 1947 and Additional District magistrate imposed a fine of Rs. 50/-, duly giving the custody of the seized food material with him. Subsequently, he was asked to procure similar quantity of material and produce before the authorities. The department filed appeal before the District magistrate, who referred the case to High court under Section 488 of Code of Criminal procedure, 1898. Accepting the reference the High Court enhanced the punishment to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 -. Before the Supreme Court, it was, inter alia, contended that the District magistrate who made the reference, to the high Court, was "personally interested" in the case as he himself had accorded sanction under Section 38 of the Assam Food Grains control Order. 1,000 -. Before the Supreme Court, it was, inter alia, contended that the District magistrate who made the reference, to the high Court, was "personally interested" in the case as he himself had accorded sanction under Section 38 of the Assam Food Grains control Order. Repelling the contentions, the supreme Court observed as under: in both cases of sanction and direction, an application of the mind is necessary, but there is this essential difference that in the one case there is a legal impediment to the prosecution if there be no sanction, and in the other case, there is a positive order that the prosecution should be launched. For a sanction, all that is necessary for one to be satisfied about is the existence of prima facie case. In the case of a direction, a further element that the accused deserves to be prosecuted is involved. The question whether a magistrate is personally interested or not has essentially to be decided on the facts in each case. Pecuniary interest, however small, will be a disqualification, but as regards other kinds of interest, there is no measure or standard except that it should be a substantial one, giving rise to a real bias, or a reasonable apprehension on the part of the accused of such bias. The maxim "nome Debet essejudex inpropria sua causa" applies only when the interest attributed is such as to render the case his own cause. The fulfillment of a technical requirement imposed by a statute may not, in many cases, amount to a mental satisfaction of the truth of the facts placed before the officer. Whether sanction should be granted or not may conceivably depend upon considerations extraneous to the merits of the case. But where a prosecution is directed, it means that the authority who gives the direction is satisfied in his own mind that the case must be initiated. Sanction is in the nature of a permission, while a direction is in the nature of a command. (emphasis supplied) ( 18 ) AFTER referring to a decision of the privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. King a Full Bench Judgment of Calcutta high Court in Government of Bengal v. Heera lall Dass and a decision of Madras High court in Queen Empress v. Chenchi Reddr as well as a decision of Bombay High Court in Emperorv. (emphasis supplied) ( 18 ) AFTER referring to a decision of the privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. King a Full Bench Judgment of Calcutta high Court in Government of Bengal v. Heera lall Dass and a decision of Madras High court in Queen Empress v. Chenchi Reddr as well as a decision of Bombay High Court in Emperorv. Ravji Nanaji, it was further laid down as under. As stated already, the question whether the bar under S. 556 comes into play depends upon the facts and circumstances of each particular case, the dividing line being a thin one somewhat but still sufficiently definite and tangible, namely, the removal of a legal impediment by the grant of sanction and the initiation of criminal proceedings as the result of a direction. In the present case before us we have nothing more than a sanction, and consequently we are unable to hold that the trial has become vitiated by reason of the provisions of S. 556, Criminal P. C. ( 19 ) IN Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand the supreme Court considered the principle "nemo debet esse judex in cause propria sua" and held that the principle precludes a judge who is interested in the subject matter of dispute from acting as a decision maker and that the principle applies not only to courts but all the Tribunals and bodies which are given jurisdiction to determine judicially the rights of the parties. It was a case of misconduct of Advocate and the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court had constituted a tribunal with three members chaired by sri Chhangani as chairman. Admittedly, sri Chhangani had filed vakalat for the complainant Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi, at whose instance disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Manak Lai, practicing advocate under Section 13 of the Legal practitioners Act. It was pleaded before the supreme Court that the presence of Sri chhangani as one of the three members of the tribunal introduces a fatal infirmity in the constitution of the tribunal and that the delinquent advocate had apprehension that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. On the facts of the case presented before the Apex Court, the principle was not applied to invalidate the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan, which affirmed the tribunal s view finding manak Lal guilty of professional misconduct and removing from practice. It was observed thus: it is well settled that every member of a tribunal that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially; and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. In such cases the test is not whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal, it is in this sense that it is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. ( 20 ) IN the field of Administrative Law, in umpteen number of cases, the Supreme court of India as well as various High courts have applied the principle that no man can be judge of his own cause while judicially scrutinizing the decisions and orders of various public authorities including the constitutional authorities. (See mineral Development Ltd. v. State of Bihar, a. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, G. Sarana v. Lucknow University, Arjun Chaubey v. Union of India M/s. J. Mohapatra and Co. v. State of orissa, and Ranjit Thakkur v. Union of india. In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Panf the Supreme Court held as under: the word "bias" in popular English parlance stands included within the attributes and broader purview of the word "malice", which in common acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill-will" (Stroud s Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn. , Vol. 3) and it is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. , Vol. 3) and it is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill-will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. While it is true that legitimate indignation does not fall within the ambit of malicious act, in almost all legal inquiries, intention, as distinguished from motive is the all-important factor. In common parlance, a malicious act has been equated with intentional act without just cause or excuse. ( 21 ) IF a decision maker; be it a judge - is interested in the cause, any decision by such judge would be vitiated by bias. "bias" is included within the broader purview of malice. As a necessary corollary, therefore, any executive or judicial action vitiated by bias would also be fouled by malice and cannot be sustained. Explaining the dynamics of bias , in State of Punjab v. V. K. Khanna the supreme Court after referring to the decisions v in Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country planning" and Locabail (U. K.) Ltd. v. Bay field properties Ltd as well as the decision in kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja shankar Pant (supra), laid down as under: the test, therefore, is as to whether there is a mere apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. In the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise that there is existing a real danger of bias administrative action cannot be sustained. If on the other hand allegations pertain to rather fanciful apprehension in administrative action, question of declaring them to be unsustainable on the basis therefore, would not arise. ( 22 ) THE submission of the learned Public prosecutor is that the Sub Divisional magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, gadwal initiated proceedings under section 107 of Cr. P. C. in her official capacity and that though she gave a complaint as a result of which crime No. 14 of 2005 was registered by Town Police Station, Gadwal, the Revenue Divisional Officer is not disqualified. P. C. in her official capacity and that though she gave a complaint as a result of which crime No. 14 of 2005 was registered by Town Police Station, Gadwal, the Revenue Divisional Officer is not disqualified. According to the learned Public prosecutor, the complaint was given to the police in her official capacity and "personal bias", therefore, cannot be attributed to her. The submission cannot be accepted for reasons more than one. First, a reading of the report in crime No. 21 of 2005 based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued the impugned summons would show that the incident on 22-1 -2005 do not in any manner attract the provisions of Section 107 of Cr. P. C. In so far as the incidents in respect of which an entry was made in the general diary of the police station on 4-2-2005 and 11-2-2005 are concerned, they are of very minor nature as a result of political activity and by known principles of law, they cannot lead to a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace. What remains is the complaint given by ms. T. K. Ramamani on 23-1-2005 alleging that accused Nos. 8 and 12 and others restrained herfrom performing official duties. It would, therefore, become clear that the entire basis on which the Sub Inspector of police sent report to the Executive Magistrate is the complaint alone given by the Revenue divisional Officer on 23-1-2005. Secondly, after the Revenue Divisional Officer gave a complaint on 23-1 -2005, Town Police Station, gadwal registered crime No. 14 of 2005 under sections 147, 341, 353 read with 149 of IPC and took up investigation. The Revenue divisional Officer in her statement to Police admits the genesis for the quarrel between two groups with regard to the installation of statue of late Akkala Sai Baba and the protests launched by the group belonging to Smt. Rama Saibaba. This would certainly belie any allegations of involvement of the petitioners in breach of peace in the community. Thirdly, in her statement before the police, the Executive Magistrate, alleges that Smt. Rama Saibaba and her followers belonging to Bharatiya Janata Party and telugu Desam Party, so as to wreck vengeance, stopped her and did not allow her to go to office at 10. 00 pm on 23-1-2005. Thirdly, in her statement before the police, the Executive Magistrate, alleges that Smt. Rama Saibaba and her followers belonging to Bharatiya Janata Party and telugu Desam Party, so as to wreck vengeance, stopped her and did not allow her to go to office at 10. 00 pm on 23-1-2005. Therefore, the Executive Magistrate who alleges that the petitioners restrained her from going to her office out of vengeance is certainly disqualified to take any action against the petitioners under Section 107 of Cr. P. C. It is certainly a case of real bias on the part of the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, this court cannot allow any further proceedings in the case. It is nobody s case before this court that the petitioners are habitual offenders or known to have been involved in anti-social activities in Gadwal town. Admittedly, all the petitioners are activists and supporters of political parties and the democratic protest by them, which might have been not totally peaceful, does not lead to any opinion that they are likely to cause breach of peace in the society. This Court, is therefore, convinced that if the proceedings against the petitioners are allowed, the same would result in miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law. ( 23 ) IN the result, for the above reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings before the Sub Divisional executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal in Mahaboob Nagar District in crime No. 21 of 2005 are quashed.