MADHU LIMAYE & ANR. versus VED MURTI & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 28-10-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

742 
MAOHU LIMAYE & ANR. 
v. 
VED MURTI & ORS. 
October 28, 1970 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., 
J. M. SH_ELAT, 
G. K. MITTER, 
C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJJ] 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), s. 117(3)-Magistrate 
aski-ig for interim bond pending con1pletio11 of inquiry-'Pending con1ple-
Jion of inquiry' meaning of. 
A 
B 
Apprehending violent and destructive activities by the petitioners the 
C 
police arrested them without a warrant and took them before the Magis-
trate "to be bound over under s. 107 of the Code di Criminal Procedure. 
No proceedings were drawn up under s. 107 before the arrest, and after 
.they were taken before the Magistrate, on the report of the police, the 
Magistrate d;ew up the order under s. 112 and it was read over to the 
petitioners. 
Thereafter, under s. 117(3) the Magistrate asked the peti-
tioners to execute an interim oond, and as the pe!itioners refused to do 
so they were remanded to custody. The Magistrate did not take any sworn 
D 
statement or make any enquiry into the truth of the information be'fore 
asking for the interim bond and merely adjourned the case for examination 
of· the petitioners without summoning any \Vitnesses 
in support of the 
information. 
On the question of the validity of the detention, 
HELD : Under the scheme d the Code the. Magistrate can only ask 
for an interim bond if he could not complete the inquiry. The· expression 
'pending completion of the inquiry' ins. 117(3) postulates commencement 
of the inquiry, which means, commencing of the trial according to sum· 
moos procedure. 
The Magistrate cannot postpone the case anU hear no-
body and yet ask fdr the interim bond. [749 C-D] 
In the present case, if interim bonds \\'ere required from the petitioner 
the .Magistrate ought to have entered upon the inquiry and satisfied him-
,.u, at least prima facie, about the truth of the information in relation to 
the allegecj facts. 
Without making any such inquiry the Magistrate could 
not require them to be detained in custody. 
Therefore, the proceedings 
for asking interim bond and the remand 
to 
custody were 
completely 
illegal. [750 C] 
Sections 91 and 344 of the 
Code do not apply to persons like the 
petitioners who were brought before court under the provisions of Ch. 
VIII of the Code. [749 F] 
Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magi.<trate, Monghyr, [1971] 2 711 
S.C.R., followed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 307 of 1970. 
Petition under A.rt. 32 of the Constitution of India. 
The petitioner appeared in person. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
MAOHU L!MAYE V; YEO MURTI (Hidayatullah, C.J.) 
7 4 3 
K. Ra;endra Chaudhuri and Pratap Sin,gh, for petitioner No. 
2. 
L. M. Singh vi and 0. P. Rana, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the €ourt was delivered by-
B 
Hidayatullah, C.J.-This is a combined. p~tltion by Mad~u 
Limaye, M.P. a leader of the Samyukta Sociahs~ Party ?f !ndrn 
and Ram Adhar Girl, Secretary of the same party m the D1str1ct of 
Varanasi. 
This petition was heard along with Writ Petition No. 77 
i.f 1970, filed earlier by Madhu Limaye, because both these pet1-
tioos challenge the constitutionality of Section 144 and Chapter Vl~I 
c of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
By an Order passed unani-
mously by a Special Bench. of 7 Judges (of which we were also 
members) on that part of the ar~uments, the petitioners stand con-
cluded on the constitutional pomts raised by them. 
The Sp\cial 
Bench holds that section 144 and the provisions of Chapter. VIII 
of the Code of Criininal Procedure, when properly construed, 
0 
are constitutional and valid. 
Applying the construction which 
is elaborately indicated in that order we proceed to examine the 
petition. 
The case of the petitioners is that on August 3, 1970 one of 
them (Madhu Limaye) arrived at Varanasi Airport from Cal-
cutta and Ram Adhar Giri and others went ther.e to receive him. 
E 
The two petitioners named here and one N arendra Shastri were 
arrested by the police at a level crossing when they were proceed-
ing by car to the city.· According to the peti'tioners they were 
not told the grounds of their arrest but were take)l to Varanasi 
Police Station and afterwards to the City Magistra(e's Court. 
On 
the way the Police Officers showed them the report made by the 
F Police to the Magistrate for taking action under sections 107I117 
and 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. · When they appeared 
before the Magistrate he read out a notice under section 112 of 
the Code calli

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.