 He wants to share the knowledge which he has gained with the flux of reading and the professional knowledge in the judiciary side. Thank you. And once again, happy Onam. What do you message Nagaraj? Thank you, sir. Good evening and happy Onam to Onandall. My humble condolence to Vikas Ji, especially because he has given a second chance. Already I have promised him to take a class, but due to various reasons we could make it only today. But whatever it is, it is a positive sign. The topic today, namely security for keeping peace and good behavior is intended to reduce the filing of case in a way to reduce the over burden of the courts because after committing a crime, the person will be dealt with in the manner known to law like registration of FIR, then getting on bail, then going for the automobile trial. He has to wait in the queue for various years. But it is a chance to prevent. Prevention is better than you. Just because some disease to prevent us, we go for the doctor in the early diagnosis. In a way, it is also intended only to reduce the burden of the courts in other way to keep the society at large and a peaceful atmosphere. I know that this group is a alike group with eminent personalities, but my endeavor is to highlight the topic to our young lawyers, law student faculties, exam aspirants, to have an overview of the topic. John Stuart Mill pointed out in his Locust Classicals on Liberty that, I quote, the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. We will jump on to the topic. Section 106 and 107 of the criminal procedure code deals in this topic in an exhausting manner. I will just go by the act and also side by side some of the decisions so that we can have a better understanding and any questions on the context in the judicial exam or any of the field in the legal faculty, we can be able to come out successfully in that way. Chapter 8 of the criminal procedure code, if you deal it, broadly deals with the provisions related to the security for keeping peace and good behavior. In here, security to be interpreted as to furnishing guarantee, surities or executing bond to the concerned executive magistrate that he will uphold the peace for smooth functioning of conducting of festivals or religious processions, et cetera, somewhat like that. Now that the security it would be for a specified period. It is an interim order. It is for a specified period given an undertaking to the concerned authority, namely the executive magistrate. So for that, for a limited purpose, discretionary power is vested with the executive magistrate and no one can claim that the provisions is repugnant to the fundamental rights under the constitution. I am also to highlight that it is a self-explaned comprehensive procedure with a view to maintain peace and security in a grave circumstances in a particular area. The object of the section is to prevent the breach of peace taking place and not merely to follow up breach of peace which has already taken place. Security can be demanded under this section only when a person is convicted of any one of the offenses mentioned in subsection 2 of section 106 comes into play. Likewise, section 106 apply when by reason of the conviction of the person, his conduct leads to the court that an apprehension for the future is raised. Execution of bond with or without surities. The surity by their bond guarantees that the person bound over will keep the temper and good behavior for a specified period, say for example, one year or two years of assets. Now that in other words, surity undertaken for a contractual liability and it is not for the payment of money alone. Supposing if there is a breach of peace, the surity who has executed cannot be called upon to just to pay the amount itself because he has to keep the promise that he will have a smooth, peaceful atmosphere for conducting a festival or a religious position, whatever may be, as called by the authority concern. Now that before invoking an action of section 107 of the criminal procedure court, the concerned magistrate on the case to satisfy that such action is necessarily to be taken to prevent persons from committing breach of peace and he shall record reasons. I want to emphasize he shall record reasons for his satisfaction. Only upon his satisfaction he can ask the person to execute the bond. Essential circumstances to invoke section 107 of the criminal procedure court when an executive magistrate is informed or brought to his notice that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do an wrongful act that may result in a breach of peace. Section 107 sub plus one CRPC requires such person to show cause as to why he shall not be directed to execute a bond with or without surities for keeping peace for a period not exceeding one year. So there may be a question. Supposing if you call for a person to execute a bond for a specified period, what will be the time limit? Say for three, three years, four years, five years, one year. So the right answer will be one year. 106 of the court of criminal procedure court provides that a court of session or a magistrate of the first class may at time of passing sentence on a person convicted of certain specified offenses order him to execute bond for keeping peace of such period not exceeding three years as if things fit. So supposing if a criminal court comes to the conclusion in a case like criminal assault or for mischief, committing mischief, offenses of criminal intimidation or any other offenses as specified at which I create then what will happen? Then the court after recording its conviction will call upon the party to execute a bond for a period of three years that he will keep the peace of the locality in a particular period specified by him. The bond will be executed by him as warranted by the concerned court. Supposing how to check this cross check? Supposing if a person executes a bond for three years, whether he is in line with the bond that has already been executed. We can cross check by way of probation officers report or by way of any advocate commissioners report or basically through the concerned inspector, jurisdictional inspector as to whether that person is keeping with the bond as promised by him. Now, what are the offenses that can be taken note of under section 106 CRPC? It is also a crucial aspect. Offenses under section 106 plus one CRPC are those other than offense punishable under section 153 or section 153B or section 154. Any other offense under section 8 of the Indian penal code? As already I spoke on it, it would be like offenses like assault or criminal force for committing mischief, offenses of criminal intimidation and any other offense. Now, evidence of past contact, whether it can be taken note of while giving a direction under section 106. It is not a legal evidence section 106 of CRPC. Evidence of past contact may not be taken into account. Supposing in the appeal, if the trial code for the magistrate court is imposing a conviction for two years and fine also a certain amount say 2000 or 3000 and also a direction is passed under section 106 that he should execute a bond for a period of two or three years to keep in peace of the particular locality. If an appeal is preferred before the appellate court, if the appellate court comes to the subjective satisfaction that the evidence recorded by the trial court is not in concern with the established principles of law or the evidence is not admissible in the manner that has been provided. And if really the person is able to prove that he is also a person of good caliber, then the appeal code on considering the various legal parameters can set aside the not only the conviction or other things, even the bond that has been executed can be cancelled. That is the power improver to the appellate court. I want to discuss you for a case law just to be going by the section 106 or 107. A famous interesting case by the honorable Metra Psycho reported in Ganesan versus DSP, Aruko Gottai Subdivision, Virudnagar district. It is a district in Tamil Nadu. Here in the case, an order is passed by the DSP as against the petitioner rejecting his request of the petitioner to delete his name in the history of rowdies. The petitioner has been warranted to file the repetition before the appellate court. The contention of the petitioner in that case is that though a criminal case has been filed as against him way back in the year 2003, it ended in acutel and on the basis of the SI of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police, DSP ordered his name in the history sheet to be mentioned. The petitioner has been frequently called upon to appear before the concerned police station under the pretext of enquiry and surveillance. And the same has reported his reputation. That was the contention he put forth before the honorable Aruko. So it amounts to his right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution. So supposing a person is called upon to the police station frequently, without there being any substance or materials that he is the person indulging in mischief or other things in the locality. The jurisdictional police inspector, he has to make a cumulative report as to the instances where he apprehends that a particular person in a locality is often creating problem. And the report should be submitted to the concerned executive magistrate to invoke Section 107 of the CRPC. So as to call upon that person, so as to calling upon him to execute, to show cost notice why he should not execute bond for a specified period. So it comes into play only after the initiation of the concerned jurisdictional police. In Tamil Nadu, there is also a practice that supposing if there is a festival like Mariaman festival or as in the north we are conducting procession of the Vinayaka ideal temple, ideals. The concerned jurisdictional magistrate, he will have a cumulative report submitted to the executive magistrate, highlighting him that the procession which takes place through a particular area to reach a particular destination. There is always a problem of fear and apprehension. Then the report can be considered and the person so mentioned in the cumulative report can be called upon by the executive magistrate to execute a bond for a period of say one year or two years or six months or as the case may be. As to why he should not be called upon to execute bond. Now if a notice is issued, the person who is in apprehension or who plans to have a particular incident to be happened, then that can be cross check. If a notice is issued by the concerned police or the magistrate, definitely there is a surveillance of the police or the magistrate. He will come down to a certain extent and that the piece can be restored, resorted to. Now coming to some of the police, police standing orders in Tamil Nadu, police standing orders 758, 748. It deals with the discontinuance of street seat. Street seat means the police often if they find that there is a habitual offender, then they will open a street seat, mentioning the name address, permanent address, the locality, the offenses which the person usually resorted to. Then the cross check will be made by the concerned police station. We can come across in some cinemas and movies where the notice board of the police station will contain some photographs. So it is all based upon the concerned police standing orders in a particular state, where various provisions have been made in the police standing orders. That the person if he is involving in a current, the routine manner of indulging in activities which is not in concern with law, then the police will have a cross check so that they will repeatedly have a report on the basis of such reporting. Usually I want to highlight one more case so that we will have a clear idea of over the context. The Honorable Supreme Court, yes, yes, in Rakesh Kumar versus Sunil Kumar reported in 1999 to SCC 489. Our Honorable Supreme Court held that the administrative action by the executive magistrate is a Gwashi judicial function and it is the duty of the concerned authority to give reasons and record its reasons and it should be a speaking order. There cannot be any cryptic order because we are in the way of democracy. Any order restraining a person or calling upon a person to execute a bond before the concerned judicial magistrate or the executive magistrate. It is a reputation on him to come to the police station and execute a bond. In such circumstances, there should be some justification. What made the executive magistrate to come to the subjective satisfaction that the particular person is not in accordance with law and he is in derailing with the established procedures. In another case, state of NCT of Delhi versus Sanjeev reported in 2005 SCC 181. The Honorable Supreme Court had held that scope of judicial review of executive action. It is right law that exercise of power challenging legislative and administrative order will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power manifestly arbitrarily. Now we can go to the comparative view of England also. Traditionally in England, executive was not answerable where its action was attributed to the exercise of prerogative power. Now coming back to our country, in Gobind versus state of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1975 SC 1378. The right of privacy has to go case by case. Even assuming the right of personal liberty as that of foundation, as that of fundamental rights, it is not absolute. So there is always a cross check to see that our liberty and our freedom does not put spokes to the other man exercising his right. Similarly, I will also, these cases you can note down if time finds you can go through the judgments where in the elaborate discussion has been made with regard to 106 and 107. And how the concerned jurisdictional police has to lay his report to the executive magistrate and the executive magistrate wherein he is called upon to ask the person as the case may be on subjective satisfaction. Subject to the inquiry on 2011 CRPC to call upon to execute the bond in the manner required under section 107. In Gobind versus inspector of police 1991 to MWN, Madras weekly notes. Page 105. The honorable judge dealt with the inherent power of the high court that it can be extended to make suitable orders to prevent the abuse of process of the court and the court was not empowered to interfere with the order passed by the executive authorities. Similarly, in a case at Karoo district reported in G, Raman alays Ramachandran versus SP of police Karoo. The honorable Madras high court had held that police standing order 747 authorized on the line of conviction of such persons for the offenses committed under section 392 to the 94 IPC. And 395 to 402 IPC and section 75 of the IPC. Supposing if the person involves in decorative frequently of the particular area, he has three or four cases. Then naturally the police is empowered to invoke its brothers under PSO, police standing order 747 to open a rowdy history seats of rowdies to as maintained to be maintained as per form 12 of the Tamil Nadu police standing orders. Now, in the above case, in the opening of history seat for rowdies as per form 112, where such persons are classified as rowdies. The order of SP of police or sub subduional officer had to be obtained on the basis of information ascertained by the station house officer. So now again the responsibility is based upon the station house officer. He cannot keep his mouth mum. Supposing if there is a monument festival in a particular locality or a Vinayagar festival as the case may be. If he is of the person who is having his jurisdictional power, he should have when a report is already filed before him that there may be stray instances regarding the smooth conduct of such festival. Then he should be able to sensitize the situation and he should report to the executive magistrate concern. As regards to the person who are the authorities who are the person who are leading such festivals and they should be called upon to execute a bond in connection with section 107 of the CRPC. So that the crime which may be committed in course of such heat or patient can be thwarted. Even mortars are done, done away with in kind of festivals like some of the festivals wherein the both parties take the loss into their own hands. So this kind of preventing measures that has to be taken by the initial level. Now I will highlight one of the case where I come across. Now the matter has not been printing already been disposed of. It is not subject to this. Hence I feel that that might be enlightening the young members of our legal fraternity to have what kind of idea that to be defended or to be taken up in such a case. A civil suit was filed claiming conducting of annual festival of one group and the other group was made as defendants. It is an Amman temple and during that hearing when we see there will be two groups. So they will be coming up to 60 to 70 members. So what I thought is that the representative may be a person, fit person to be allowed to be in the open court. So each side five persons will be allowed. Then the hearing, the trial was conducted as the manner warranted under the civil procedure court. Then when you come across that case, there were 64 locks put by both groups for the past five years that they have made up their mind that they should be either of them should be allowed to conduct the festival or else the temple should not have the daily pujas. So in order to have the smooth atmosphere, it is to be noted that already the concerned Taasudha, he had many peace talks among the groups that did not yield any fruitful result. So ultimately what I did is day to day puja has to be performed. Similarly, the locks has to be smoothly removed by the parties concerned. Then what I did is I allowed the suit to be decreed in part holding that various covenants has been attached to the set direction judgment that one of that is both parties are at liberty to conduct festival and one party is allowed to conduct the festival on a particular date. As requested by them, if the date does not contradicts with the other group, then the date may be confirmed by the Taasudha allowing a particular party to conduct the festival during the particular specified date. If there are clashes even in the fixing of the date, then the Taasudha is given the power to fix the date of each group, wherein they will conduct the festival. Now one group will conduct the festival on a particular day or particular week. The other group is not totally restrained. They can participate for worshipping purpose alone. They will not have any manner in conducting the function or festival on the particular week. Then the concerned jurisdictional inspector will give protection for the group that are conducting the particular puja. Then comes if any party creates trouble, the I.O. is called upon to take legal action as quarantined under the law. So after one week of the pronouncement of the judgment, both councils came before me at 230 something and they represented that they are both proceeding to a temple festival and that they will not be able to come in the afternoon for conducting trial of other cases. So I told why you are informing me that it may be a sort of gentleman of your juniors or so. They informed that, sir, based upon the judgment and its directions, there is no scope for any of us to go for knock the door of the appeal court or trouble the appeal court. So the logs were amicably removed and pujas were conducted. So this is the endeavor wherein the exercise of peaceful talks has gone to a failure and wherein the civil court has taken its power and jurisdiction to grant such reliefs. It is only a highlighting aspect. Now as regards the history sheets, in Tamil Nadu is concerned police standing orders namely PSO 746 deals with the same. Part 5 form number 1 contains history sheets of persons residing permanently or temporarily. Then sheet number 9 contains the particulars of photograph of the person. Sheet number 8 consists of current doings. What is the current doing? This is the person so entered in the history sheet. What is doing at the particular moment? Whether any bad characters are noticed or anything of interest brought to the notice of the IBO to be checked. The report of the sub inspector has to be checked by the concerned ASP or the DC concern. Now there are cases where automatic opening of history sheets are allowed by the law. Police standing orders take for instance 747. It has to be opened at the time of conviction of persons and the same to be retained for two years after release from jail. It follows for offenses committed under section 392 to 394 as I already said. Section 75 of IPC, thrice convicted under section 109 CRPC, twice convicted under section 110 CRPC. So these are the instances where the police standing orders can be invoked wherein the history sheets has been opened. There may be questions wherein how the history sheets are opened, whether on conviction or after conviction. What are the instances the magistrate or the executive magistrate has to taken more talk. Whether such history sheets or rowdy sheets can be charged or cancelled by way of filing it before the interval I code. These are all the parameters where you have to think over. Now if you take the history sheet, it is only an administrative action. If citizens, there may be instances where citizens participate in a peaceful protest. There may be a, they may be asking for a laying of road or drinking water purpose. Then agitation for common cause. The history sheet may not be opened for such protestors because it is not a regular offense. They cannot be equated with that of other kind of offenders. Similarly, unless an order is passed by the executive magistrate under section 107 or 110 CRPC, then such orders cannot be passed under 107. Now opening of rowdy sheet is different from opening a history sheet. Both are different. Rowdy sheet opened on the order of the concerned superintendent of police or deputy commissioner of police or additional superintendent of police. For example, you will take the instance of hydropath police tending orders, 601. Rowdies means persons who habitually commit, attempted to commit or abort the commission of offenses involving breach of peace, disturbance of police order and security. Such persons are bound over to appear under section 106, 107, 108, subclass 1, subclass small eyes and 110C of the CRPC. So there are various states where they have encapsulated the police tending orders to have the history sheet or the rowdy sheet of a particular locality. Power is given to the appellate court. As already I have discussed that point, the accused concern under section 106 should be carefully examined and timely action taken in cases has to be warranted in the spirit as warranted under law. Rowdy sheet shall be opened and their movements periodically checked and noted among other information, namely the name and addresses of the persons who had executed the bond. Now we will move on to 107, security for keeping peace in other cases and executive magistrate who is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturbed the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may be probably occasion of breach of peace or disturbance deserving the public tranquility. Now section 107, subclass 1 of the court of general procedure court requires such person to so cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without surety for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year. Similarly section 107, subclass 2 and subclass small a is that for to have effective means of preventing breaches of peace or disturbances of public tranquility in connection with religious possession. Festivals, elections, political movements or other disputes between two groups. Now it is not essential in every case that there should be two parties against each other. It must be however we clear that a breach of peace is imminent for pausing suitable orders. There should not be necessarily two groups. There may be instances where a party or possession is going on. There may be some disturbances causing disturbances to the shopkeepers and other things. So that can be taken note of by the concerned authority. Before starting the proceedings at this section, the police should collect evidence, oral and documentary of persons including police officers appointed in the circumstances of the case regarding a specified occasion on which the breach of peace is anticipated. The existence of cause or other circumstances which is likely to lead the breach on the period of its duration, the declaration of the parties, indicating that determination to carry out or to prevent certain things in connection with the subject matter of the quarrel. It is not necessary to record elaborate statement of witnesses. It is sufficient that short notes are sufficient taken by the concerned authority. Again I want to emphasize that enquiry under this section is not governed by any of the provisions of 12 of the court of criminal procedure court. So there may not be any detailed enquiry, statement of witnesses and that the concerned IO is seeking the executive magistrate to invoke his power to call for the concerned particular person to issue so-called notice. That is not the case. He can give a short note of the brief of the incidents. Similarly section 151 of the court of criminal procedure empowers a police officer to arrest without warrant any person designing to commit a cognizable offense. If in his opinion the commission of the offense cannot otherwise be prevented, if then action under section 107 is contemplated against arrested person, he may be produced before the executive magistrate for taking action. Supposing there may be instances that the IO comes to the conclusion that this person is going to commit the crime. So he can arrest it and he can bring that person before the executive magistrate. What is the purpose? It is not for remanding. It is only asking the executive magistrate or requesting him to invoke his power and do not submit. And asking the person so arrested to execute a bond in line with the keeping the peace of a particular area for a specified career. Then on execution of the bond, the executive magistrate may release him on admonition or for a specified period to be observed by the concerned IO under the scheme of probation officers or as the case may be. Now the magistrate may under section 116 of the court order the execution of an interim bond with or without surities for keeping peace until the conclusion of the inquiry may detain him in custody until such a bond is executed or in default to execution until the enquiries conducted. There may be two cases. The person arrested he will say. No, no, I will not execute a bond. Complete the inquiry. In such a case, if the magistrate feels that executive magistrate, I mean that the executive magistrate, he feels that if the person is allowed to walk away cake free, then he will go and disturb the particular area in a particular manner. Then he can ask the person that he will be arrested, he will be remanded to particular period. Or he may say that unless you execute a bond, you will not be allowed to move. So these are all the instances where the powers are given to the executive magistrate to see that the particular area is not in the disturbance area. The peace is kept in a humanitarian ground. There is no harm to the residents and everything is under control. Now provisions of chapter 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to bail. Then that do not pass, that do not apply to an order of detention passed under section 107 subclass 4 of the CRPC. What I want to say is that the person, it is only an entry order passed by the executive magistrate based upon the subjective satisfaction of the report. Either an inquiry may be conducted and 116 of the CRPC or he may ask the person to execute a bond as the case may be. Now, one question that falls for consideration is whether previous incident necessary for initiating proceedings under section 107 of the criminal procedure code. Reading of section 107 shows that the power to initiate proceedings devolves upon the executive magistrate. Whenever he receives any information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace and that it does not express that there should be a previous offense or a suspect to invoke this position. So there is no necessity. Now, it has to be seen that the likelihood of a breach of peace by itself is enough for the executive magistrate to initiate proceedings under section 107 of the CRPC and he cannot wait for the occurrence to take place and thereafter take action under the said provision. So it is already said prevention is better than pure. If a report is filed, then it is incumbent on the part of the executive magistrate to see that he exercises his power under section 107 by calling upon the person aptly to execute a bond to his subjective satisfaction for the issue as that has been raised by way of report by the concerned jurisdictional inspector. Now, a case, I can refer a case in Adi Madhavan and others versus state and another reported in 2004, one law weekly criminal page 554. Honorable single judge of the Honorable Madhavan Psycho has said that even without any incident having taken place, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there is a likelihood of breach of peace, he is justified in initiating proceedings under section 107. Now, another question that falls for consideration in this topic is whether section 197 of criminal procedure code can be initiated even before an incident that is likely to disturb the peace happens or public tranquility takes place. Again, I am reminded of the decision of Honorable Madhavan Psycho reported in M. Krishnamurti versus the Subdivisional Magistrate has held that the proceedings under section 107 of criminal procedure code can be initiated even before an incident that is likely to disturb the peace or public tranquility takes place provided that the executive magistrate has information before him based on which he is of the opinion that there is a possibility of breach of peace. And that there is sufficient grounds for proceeding. Now, another question that is that has to be considered is whether so cost notice issued under section 107 of criminal procedure code should contain that the magistrate had accepted the truth of information and the necessity for taking such action. It is settled that the executive magistrate before passing an order under section 101 of criminal procedure code, he is under an statutory duty to inquire into the truth of the information placed before him at the stage of assuming his jurisdiction. Section 107 authorizes the executive magistrate to assume jurisdiction under section 107 and powers in order under section 101 of criminal procedure code when he receives information of a likely breach of peace. The constitution bench in Madhulimai case reads as follows. In our opinion, the words of the section are quite clear as said by a straight judge in emperor versus Babu. And the order under section 112 is on hearsay, but the inquiry under section 117 has to be in consonance with the established procedure of law. It is to be seen that the truth of the necessary information, the law does not contemplate any preliminary inquiry under section 111 of criminal procedure code to find out the truth of the information. The baseline of finding out the truth of the information will come only during the course of inquiry, which is evident from section 116 of the code. Again, I want to emphasize that it was elaborately dealt by Honorable Madrasai Court in M. Krishnamurthy case wherein the Honorable Court observed that the superior court should loathe to interfere when a so-caste notice is issued under section 107 read with 111 of the code of the criminal procedure code because any such interference at the threshold would clearly turn to amount to putting spokes in the process initiated by the executive magistrate for preventing the breach of peace and it is a common knowledge. Now that there may be instances in the Tamil Nadu or for say take for any state, if there is a festival in the village then what will happen after the festival is conducted, there may be two groups. One maybe will be discontented with the manner in which the festival is conducted. They will take revenge as against the other party and I want to place the board that has been observed by Honorable Ico that in the countryside after the annual village festival gets over discontent among various factions will be simmering for one reason or the other. Each group will be wanting the scalp of the other, the police who have the ears to the ground would sense it and in order to avoid the situation to explode. Stationers officer would lay the necessary information before the executive magistrate for appropriate action. In the state of Tamil Nadu it is the practice for the police to send the report in the form of an FIR under section 107 of criminal procedure code. This has come for serious criticism on the ground that section 107 of the criminal procedure code is not a penal provision wanting registration of FIR under section 154 of CRPC. Of course this argument may be legally appealing but the fact is that it is a problem in the state that a FIR book is maintained by the stationers officer. That practice was upheld based upon the dictum laid down by Honorable Subramanian Court in Vinay Tiyagi case reported in 2013-05 SCC 762 wherein makers which are understood and implemented as a legal practice are not opposed to the basic rule of law would be a good practice. Such interpretation was based on contemporary exposure. So even though in Tamil Nadu there is a practice of reporting the instances by way of separate FIR, the Honorable I Court accredited the same stating that the such practice is in law, is a good practice since it is practiced in the long usage. And the report by way of FIR is considered to be a report under by the concerned executive magistrate and he has to pass an order under section 107 of the code. Now coming to the section 11 whether it is a reviewable order by the judicial authorities is that a case interesting case reported in Union of India versus big laboratories reported in 2007-13 SCC 270. Subramanian Court held that normally the court should not interfere at the stage of issuance of SOCAS notice by the authorities. In such a case the parties get ample opportunities to put forth their intentions before the authorities concerned. So that is why it is for the authorities concerned to note about the absence of case for proceeding as against the person whom the SOCAS notice have been issued. Hence what has been held is that supposing an order is passed by the executive magistrate calling upon a particular person to execute a bond under section 107. If he feels aggrieved whether he can go for a review is a matter of debate and in that the honorable Supreme Court held that he is provided already he is provided an opportunity to express his defense or objection whatever may be to the concerned authority. And since it is a review it is not reviewable if it is in concerns with the established procedures of law. Now coming to the another case reported in 2007-13 SCC page 270. Parath 31 that is very interesting. I will just read out the Parath 31 where the Honourable I code in Union of India versus Vico Laboratories. Normally the writ code should not interfere at the stage of issuance of SOCAS notice by the authorities. In such a case the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their intentions before the authorities concerned. And to satisfy the authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding against the person against whom SOCAS notice has been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of issuance of SOCAS notice in order to relegate the parties to the proceedings before the concerned authorities is the normal rule. Supposing if however SOCAS notice is issued without jurisdiction then what will be the fate of the person. Then he can knock the door of the court and it is an abuse of process of law. Then certainly in that case the writ code would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of SOCAS notice. So these are all the instances where the Executive Magistrate takes a predominant role in keeping the peace and security of a particular locality. In one way when we compare it with that of the court system as I have already pondered the same in the initial speech. Supposing if the 106 and 107 is not there, for an argument sake let us keep aside, 106 and 107 is not there. Supposing if a problem arises say for criminal intimidation or an assault in a particular locality. Then what will be the fate of the concerned jurisdiction libel. He has to go and inquire, he has to receive a report, a complaint wherein the law has to be set into motion, a FIR has to be lodged. Then the persons who have committed a cognisable offense has to be arrested in consonance with the established procedures. And he has to if he is satisfied that they should be remanded then a remand has to be done. Then the role of the court comes into play. Then the magistrate has to see whether 41 EACR BC has been complied or not. Whether it is necessary to remand the person to the judicial custody. And if so a remand is given then the other law comes into play. He will approach the lawyer and the bail application will be filed. Then the bail if it is granted he will be on a trim bail. Then the role of the IO starts, then he will go for the investigation purpose. 161 statements, documents, exhibits, FSL reports everything, whatever is warranted under the alleged offense. Then that will be the law will take its own course. Then he will file a final report. Then the file starts and the conclusion is given by the concerned court. So this will take at least a minimum exercise. Already the courts are overboden with the existing case and the inflow of cases. Now as like that of ADR which has been introduced to balance or share the weight of the court. This is also a preventing measure wherein the legislator thought it fit in its wisdom that 106 and 107 will have a fair play. Particularly it is working out. Supposing if we see that there is an ideal procession in the particular locality. Then the IO cannot go and arrest 500,000 of people and then putting them on jail or it will create a huge calamity among the particular area. So avoid such a scenario. Then the report alone is sufficient. Supposing if we take for a village festival in a particular locality. After the village is over, even if there are two groups, definitely one group will lodge a complaint well before the conduct of the festival. In that case, the IO should be sensitized. If the IO is not sensitized, if he is taking the matter in the lighter way, then things will take its own course. Then there will be greater damage to the persons and the properties. So the section 106 and 107 though say that the IO is a person to initiate the proceedings. 107, as far as 107 is concerned, we have to see that he is the person who has to take sensitiveness of the situation. Similarly, the executive magistrate, if he feels that he want to make a preliminary inquiry with regard to the truth of the information. Then 116, he can either go for 111 or 116 and he can come to the subjective satisfaction that based upon such and such report. I am satisfied that I am asking this person to calling upon to execute a bond. Similarly, the courts also is also sensitized. Supposing he is in 106 cases. After the conviction is passed, if the court has traversed the evidence that this person has committed is going on committing a series of cases by other mode. Or if he thinks that again if it is left, he will go and ponder upon some other new case. Then he can call upon exercising his powers. Take for example, illicit rags. He will be coming routinely by month after month and admitting the case or challenging the case. In such a case, if the court comes to the conclusion and if the IO files a report. Then that can be drastic. The bond can be executed by that person that he will keep good behavior for a particular career. These are all the instances where section 111, section 116 and 106 and 107 comes into play. Sir, because sir, I think whether the time is there or shall I proceed for another 5 or 10 minutes? No, proceed. Yes, sir. Thank you. Now, I want to ponder upon the case law which I have already stated in Ganesan v. DSP, Arupu Kota Subdivision, Varunagad district. Here the person's endeavor is that he has already made an request to the concerned DSP that his name which is found place in the rowdy list has to be deleted and a requisition was made. Now that the DSP who passes such an order, he is basing his opinion or order based upon the judicial inspector who has sought for such inclusion of name in the rowdy list. The contention as already I said, the petitioner therein is that, though he has filed a criminal case against him in the year 2003 itself, the trial of the court has been completed and he was ultimately acquitted in that case. And on the basis of the SI of police, DSP ordered his name in the STC. Now the further our contention and objection of the petitioner therein the court is there. He has been asked to come to the court frequently to appear before the police under the pretext of inquiry and surveillance. The same had affected his reputation. Then it amounts to an violation of his right as guaranteed under article 21 to his right of life and personal liberty. So this kind of things can be cross checked by way of filing a written appeal. Now regarding suspects supposing if the person is not actually committed any offense, he is only suspected what is the case, what can be done in that case. Then I will come to Tamil Nadu because Tamil Nadu I have the police standing order 749 wherein regarding suspects persons not convicted but believed to be addicted to crime and who is habitually committing or alleges to commit or a person bound over to appear in the session 106 or 107 CRPC at the earlier occasions. Then suspect list should be opened by the concerned jurisdictional in IO under section under section not section under PSO 749. Now that suspect STC should be kept confidential. It cannot be displayed in the police station as that of other STC. So it should be kept confidential. Now what are the instances as already told you that persons of illicit distillers they may be called upon to execute such bond. Then supposing if a person is convicted under section 356 CRPC, then an order passed under 356 CRPC, it should not be closed. The history should not be closed. Persons convicted as above will be styled as known depredators that is spoilers. They are spoiling the entire area so the name is given. It is not in concerns with any IPC or CRPC. It is in practice the police standing orders they have been given powers to style those offenders, habitual offenders to have a cross check. Now one may think that what is the use of opening a STC to our rowdy sheet. What way to help while we are displaying the same. We may come across in some of the police station and railway stations that the identity of the persons beware of these persons the photos will be displayed. Even in the police station the photos will be displayed. Supposing a person is from entirely new area, he should be put on notice that there will be habitual pick packet or snatching of chain or other things. So to allow the public to be cautious and in the way to prevent the commission of any offence prevention is better than cure. So in that line the STC makes a valuable assistance to the inspector. Supposing there may be habitual offenders. For instance if there is a festival coming and two groups are fighting over each other. If the IOE in spite of his complaint from any of the group if he doesn't have a cross check or a eye over the activities of that group then it will lead to serious consequences. Supposing if the person often indulges in pick packet or assault or criminal mischief in a particular area then your rowdy sheet should be opened. What is the purpose? The patrolling officers once in a week will be following. They will have the report each week to be submitted to the ASP. If at all any bad antecedents or bad character is noticed in the current doing of the activities of the concerned person then necessarily then the executive magistrate should be sensitized. So invoke its powers under section 107. These are all the instances where the IOE can keep a particular locality under control under grim so that the society is protected in the manner as contemplated under section 106 and 107 of the criminal procedure code. There may be cases wherein fanciful orders may be passed without going into the truth of information. Supposing if a person is of a reported concern out of grudge or violence a person is giving a complaint. The executive magistrate is also duty bound to give a detailed reason based upon the information of the IOE and based upon the cases and the instances that has been referred. He is invoking his powers and he is calling upon the person to show cause why he should not be called upon to execute a bond for a particular period. That will be a classic. There cannot be any brief order. It should be a recent order. So that is the crux of the thing we have to take note of. Offences particularly 392 to 394. Decoyd. There will be various cases. There will be flow of line of cases upon a particular group or a particular persons in a particular station. In such a case the IOE should be of more vigilant. So invoke the powers and open the rowdy sheet or STC to have the movement of those persons to prevent subsequent commission of the offense. So this is the baseline. Any questions on that score on the judicial side the young lawyers made note of not only the section hospital you have to see the merits and demerits supposing in the absence of 106 and 107 what will happen? Supposing 106 and 107 comes into play what will be prevented? What is the benefit that is available to the court of law? These are all the areas where you have to think and answer. So the logical questions that some of the questions that I have posted already I have answered myself. I think any of the questions if you have in your mind you are free to discuss. I am also able to answer that. If it is posted I will I think I will be able to answer. This is by Minhal, can a rowdy sheet be exempted from the list of offenders or rowdy if he is found to be living a life or normal life without involvement in crime? Have to look at him. Without involvement in crime? You have to see two instances. Supposing if there is a conviction of the criminal court that he is involved in a particular offence then 106 comes into play. Supposing if there is an order of acutal that this person though has been charged of a particular offence and ultimately the criminal court has come to the finding that he is not guilty of the offence as charged against him. Then it is a different issue wherein the person the executive magistrate can take note of that and he cannot pass an order according to the swims and fancies. He should have a subjective satisfaction. In such case if he is not inclined to do or to cancel the bond then you can approach the credit code to order accordingly. Can a single person in another state without any armed, without any influence of any intoxicated substance be arrested under section 107 151 and 116 by police officer? Yes sir, but supposing if he is coming in the odd hours the circumstances has to be taken note of. If he is a person of a normal move he is coming in the day hours all day and he is going to be in a particular place with a particular residential address or his movement is with records then definitely there will not be any apprehension. Supposing if he comes in the odd hours without any address his movement is so suspicious the police officer questions him the answer is not in concern with the question that has been posted then if a suspicion is arised in the mind of the police officer then naturally he can invoke this provision and ask him to execute a bond or he can file an FIR as the case may be. What are the important grounds to remove from the rowdy list so kindly to list out? Supposing if a person is already in the rowdy list his activities means the subsequent activities he should be able to prove that he is keeping the good temper of the particular area and that he is not involved in any other offence no such FIR has been registered subsequent to the alleged incident and that there is he is whipping a good evocation and he has joined in a good reputation these are all the documents which substantiates that after the commission of the crime or after the condition of a particular offence he has way back come to the normal track and he is proceeding and he is a law abiding citizen then naturally that has to be considered yes. Advocate Karan please explain whether the order of the executive magistrate can be questioned in court of law or is that right? Yes that can be questioned as already placed on the authority of the honourable supreme court if the order of the executive magistrate is not in concern with the reasons one second I will take that authority itself supposing if the executive magistrate passes an order without any substance then naturally that has to be set aside by the report because there should be some justification where he is passing an order the report submitted by the as already submitted the report submitted by the inspector cannot be taken as gospel truth by the concerned executive magistrate he is duty bound to make a make a subjective satisfaction by making an inquiry on section 116 of CRPC to come to the subjective satisfaction that the situation so war and sin to exercise his power and section 107 otherwise he can decline it he is the authority a discretion is given to him he is a gospel judicial authority he should exercise his discretion within the parameters established yes sir year 2008 a person was implicated in a murder case it happened in a village at that time a rowdy sheet is open the person was was acquitted in 2012 still the persons are continuing with the rowdy sheet and harassing it what is the remedy since there is no FIR registered he is leading as an agriculturalist in this in this case now you are referring to a murder case sir so I think he has been convicted so when he is convicted he says ultimately acquitted okay if in such a case there are two things to be noted to take a note of whether the acquitted is offer non is for want of evidence or whether there is no direct evidence for his occurrence or the occurrence is so probable that he is committed the offense so alleged in concerns with other members they are not to read with 34 or they are not to read with the 149 in such a case though there is no sufficient circumstantial evidence or the motive is not proved or any other dislink in the chain of circumstances if he is acquitted if his role on the particular incident is of doubtful then the IO is at liberty I think whether the order is passed into 106 or 107 the question is with regard to 106 or 107 sir whether the question is with regard to 106 or 107 nothing nothing nothing okay 106 ultimately the court will not invoke its power because he is already acquitted the instances may be under section 107 so 107 there should be some substance as already told you there should be some substance by the judicial IO that he is apprehending some of the mischief at the hands of this person so prevent him invoke your power that should be there a person who is acquitted cannot be called upon to execute a bond or he should keep behavior for 3 years that is not in consonance with the established principles of law how to prevent the innocent person to be added falsely in a police case now the innocent person in the police case that is a wider connotation unless you give a specific instances because everybody in a criminal case pleads innocence and presumption of innocence yes presumption of innocence is there so the court proceeds with the prime efficacy case so initially a remand is made and other things is made the ultimate evidence and other defences allowed to be taken to be produced before the court of law then come to the subjective satisfaction that based upon the evidence of these oral witnesses and the documents the court has come to the conclusion that this person has committed an offense so a question in line with a particular occurrence or with a particular thing I may be able to clarify more on the context yes how to justify the police act when it adds a person in the rowdy list in a malefied manner are there any way forward to stop it yes supposing if a civil dispute is there a person goes to the police station and in the base of settlement a wordy quarrel is going on with the Ivo and Ivo thought that on his provoking he feels that this person should be put on some hold and that he makes a false report to the executive magistrate then he can file a rate before the court stating that these are all the instances where I have been called upon by the concerned Ivo on a particular date regarding a civil dispute and that on the space of occurrence I have submitted so and so documents wordy quarrel took place based upon the base of settlement suggested by the Ivo and he had been provoked by that act and he has falsely implicated me in the above case then that can be done before that the executive magistrate is also a occurrence is there the occasion is there to put forth all these things you need not go to the report also supposing if you are not 7, so-called notice is issued to you you are a duty bound you are at liberty to place all the papers upon your contentions satisfy the executive magistrate that the so-called notice is not unnecessary you are a person of good reputation, you are running a good grocery shop for a particular time you are having a reputation in the local temple dress or you are having a member of a lion's club or doing social activities or a NGO member these are all the substances where we have to think upon just like that when nobody can be called upon to execute a bond, yes last question, can they accuse having more number of cases to add to the rowdy list or even one case is enough pardon me, repeat the question can they accuse reporting the rowdy list only on the ground that there are number of cases pending against you no, no, no, that cannot be a reason because there may be cases ended in acquittal also so just because the case numbers is mounting take for example illicit distillers there will be empty number of cases as against a single person there will be number of affairs, number of admissions there will be number of cases pending in such cases the court itself can be requested to pass a particular order and not six asking the particular person to keep good behavior or not to enter a particular place of where the illicit arrack or distillers are being produced that can be sought by the concerned I.O so all things takes place at the instance of the I.O, he is the person who has to ring the bell thank you Mr. Nagarain, thank you it was a pleasure connecting with you once again, thank you