Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1216 (RAJ)

Virendra James v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-23

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2014
ORDER Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the show-cause notice issued and the simultaneous order passed thereupon binding the petitioner for the period of three months to maintain peace be set aside as they are contrary to the ratio of law laid in Madhu Limaye & Anr. Vs. S.D.M.Monghyr reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2486. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had received a show-cause notice on 8th April, 2014 asking him to appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Assistant Police Commissioner, Jaipur on 9th April, 2014 at 10.00 A.M. It will be apposite here to reproduce show-cause notice sent to the petitioner : - ^^bl fo’oluh; bfŸkyk }kjk fd %& layxz lkj uksfVl /kkjk 107@111 tkŒ QksŒ ds vuqlkj eq>s ;g izrhr djk;k x;k gS fd ;g lEHkkO; gS fd vki ifj’kkafr Hkax daajsxs ;k ,slk dk;Z djsaxs ftlls fd lEHkor% ifj’kkfr Hkax gksxh] blfy, blds }kjk vkils vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd vki Loa; ¼vFkok vius lE;d :Ik ls izkf/kd`r vfHkdrkZ }kjk½ rkjh[k 9&4&14 dks U;k;ky; dk;Zikyd eftLVsªV ,oa lgk;d iqfyl vk;qDr ¼eq[;ky;½ mŸkj ds dk;kZy; es fnu es 10-00 cts bl ckr dk dkj.k nf’kZr djus ds fy, gkftj gks fd vkils ;g vis{kk D;ks u dh tk, fd bl ckr ds fy, vki 3 ekg dh vof/k ds fy, ifj’kkfr dk;e j[ksaxsA vki 5000@& :i;s dk ca/ki= e; leku jkf’k ds fy, izzfrHkw Hkh fu”ikfnr djsA gLrk{kj ^^ A perusal of the above said show-cause notice revels that in the show-cause notice nothing was stated as to what information was received and what is the amount of the bond which petitioner has to furnish. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in the show-cause notice it was not stated that what is the apprehension and reasons to assume that petitioner will commit breach of peace. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that not only show-cause notice was bereft of necessary details but on the back of it, order was also passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Assistant Police Commissioner, Jaipur that petitioner should furnish bond and should bind himself to maintain peace for a period of three months. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice, impugned order was passed at the back page of the show-cause notice. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice, impugned order was passed at the back page of the show-cause notice. Thus, show-cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Assistant Police Commissioner, Jaipur is mere formality as before the reply to the show-cause notice could be furnished, adverse order was already passed. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Madhu Limaye & Anr. Vs. S.D.M.Monghyr reported in AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2486 wherein it was held as under : - “37. The Procedure begins with S. 112. It requires that the Magistrate acting under S. 107 shall make an order in writing setting 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 tranquillity at his hands. Although the section speaks of the 'substance of the information' it does not mean that 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.” Shri Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor could not justify the show-cause notice and the order passed on the same day on the back page of the show-cause notice. A perusal of Annexure-1 show cause notice revels that no details in consonance with the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhu Limaye & Anr.(supra) were given. Furthermore, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice, order adverse to the petitioner had already been passed. The procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Assistant Police Commissioner, Jaipur is against the principles of natural justice as without affording any opportunity of hearing, petitioner stood already condemned. Furthermore, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice, order adverse to the petitioner had already been passed. The procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Assistant Police Commissioner, Jaipur is against the principles of natural justice as without affording any opportunity of hearing, petitioner stood already condemned. Consequently, the present petition is accepted and the show-cause notice issued being contrary to the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhu Limaye & Anr.(supra) and the impugned order passed thereupon being against the settled principles of natural justice are hereby quashed. Consequent upon acceptance of the main petition the stay application stands also disposed of.