Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
  • Spencer
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
  • Spencer
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns the legality of an order under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code requiring the accused to give security to keep the peace following a conviction for voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was alleged to have assaulted a prosecution witness in a public place, leading to the order for security to keep the peace. The matter was brought before the court on appeal challenging the validity of this order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323, IPC) is among those specified under Section 106, CrPC, warranting an order for security to keep the peace.
  2. Whether a finding by the Sessions Judge that a breach of the peace was actually caused is necessary before making an order under Section 106, CrPC.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first analyzed whether the offence of voluntarily causing hurt falls within the scope of offences specified under Section 106, CrPC. It found that the accused’s act included an assault on a prosecution witness in a public place, and since assault is explicitly mentioned in Section 106, the offence is encompassed within the statute. The court further interpreted the phrase "other offences involving a breach of the peace" to include offences of a similar nature (ejusdem generis) to assault, thus covering the accused’s conduct.

Regarding the necessity of a formal finding of breach of the peace, the court held that it is not mandatory for the lower court to record such a finding to exercise its power under Section 105(1), CrPC. While it would be proper for the Magistrate or Judge to clarify a breach of the peace when the offence does not necessarily imply it (e.g., criminal trespass, mischief, unlawful assembly), Section 106 does not require such a formal finding when the offence inherently involves violence. The court noted that the judge had recorded the opinion that requiring a bond to keep the peace was necessary, fulfilling the statutory requirement.

Based on this reasoning, the court concluded that the order under Section 106 was legally valid.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL and uphold the order requiring the accused to give security to keep the peace under Section 106, CrPC.

The direct effect of this decision is the validation of the security order in this case. No broader legal precedent was established beyond affirming the court’s interpretation of the statutory provisions regarding breach of the peace and the procedural requirements for such orders.

Show full summary ...

    Ramaswami Thevan And Anr. v. Emperor

    1. The only question argued at the hearing of this is, whether the order under Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the accused to give security to keep the peace is a legal order. It is argued (1) that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323, Indian Penal Code) is not one of those specified in Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code, and does not of itself necessarily involve a breach of the peace; (2) that there ought to be a finding by the Sessions Judge that a breach of peace was actually caused, before the Court made the order this section.

    2. On the first joint, I find that accused's act included an assault on the prosecution 9th witness in a public palce, and assault is one of the offences specified in Section 106. The expression "other offences involving a breach of the peace" would embrace offences ejusdem generic with the offence of assault and finding which are specified in the section. It is only because the accused's act was more serious than one of petty assault that they were not convicted of that minor offence.

    3. But the circumstances spoken to by the witnesses as those in which hurt was caused to prosecution 9th witness were such that there can be no doubt that there was a breach of the peace on that occasion.

    4. On the second point, I do not think it is necessary that the lower Court should record a finding that a breach of the peace, was involved in order to invest itself with power to make an older under Section 105(1), Criminal Procedure Code.

    5. If the offence of which the accused were convicted was one which did rot itself necessarily involve a breach of tie peace such as criminal trespass, mischief, or unlawful assembly, it would be proper that the Magistrate or Judge should in his order make it clear that a breach of the peace was committed.

    6. But the section does not require such a finding to be recorded, and when the offence of which the accused is convicted is one which implies the use of violence, it would be superfluous to say more. The Judge has recorded his opinion that it is necessary in this case to require the convicted persons to execute a bond for keeping the peace, and that is all that the section in terms demands.

    7. The order will, therefore, stand. The appeal is dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ramaswami Thevan And Anr. v. Emperor
    (Jan 25, 1923)