Summary
Before the 2021 Panchayat elections in Uttar Pradesh, a daily-wage earner was bound over to keep the peace on a bond of Rs 5 lakh under Section 107 CrPC. After the elections, a Lekhpal reported that he had built on pond land and obstructed and abused officials. The Magistrate proceeded ex parte and forfeited the whole Rs 5 lakh. The Supreme Court reduced the payable amount to Rs 5,000. Chapter VIII CrPC is preventive and not punitive. Section 117 forbids excessive bonds. Under Section 446(3) the court may remit part of a forfeited penalty. Guilt of encroachment or obstruction could not be assumed without regular proceedings, and the fine for obstruction under Section 186 IPC is only Rs 500.
Issues
- Whether forfeiture and recovery of the entire bond of Rs 5,00,000 furnished under Section 107 CrPC by a daily-wage earner, for alleged obstruction of officials after the purpose of the bond had been served, was justified or should be reduced.
Provisions considered
- Section 107 and Chapter VIII, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Security for keeping the peace is preventive, not punitive, and is not meant to augment the exchequer. (¶¶ 6, 11, 12)
- Section 117, proviso (b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The bond must be fixed with due regard to the circumstances and the person's status and must not be excessive; Rs 5,00,000 was excessive in itself. (¶¶ 12, 16)
- Section 446(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Even where no sufficient cause is shown against forfeiture, the court may, with reasons, remit part of the penalty having regard to the circumstances and the person's means. (¶¶ 13, 17)
- Section 122(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The forfeiture was ordered by the Magistrate under this provision on a report of breach of the bond. (¶¶ 3, 4)
- Section 186, Indian Penal Code, 1860Commission of this offence could not be assumed without regular proceedings, and its maximum fine of Rs 500 showed the forfeiture to be disproportionate. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Held
- Chapter VIII of the Code, including Section 107, is preventive and aimed at forestalling breach of public peace; it is not a vehicle for punishment, and imposing a heavy bond that a person may be unable to pay converts it from preventive to punitive, contrary to proviso (b) to Section 117. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- Section 446(3) allows the court to remit part of a forfeited bond, so even absent sufficient cause the court is not bound to recover the entire amount and may consider the nature of the act, the person's status and the excessiveness of the bond. (¶ 13)
- The elections were over when the alleged breach occurred; the appellant could have been proceeded against for encroachment or prosecuted under Section 186 IPC with an opportunity of defence, but guilt could not be assumed without such proceedings; given that the offence carries a fine of only Rs 500, his daily-wage livelihood and the absence of any imminent threat, forfeiture of Rs 5,00,000 was exorbitant and beyond the purpose of Chapter VIII. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 2034 of 2022 partly allowed; the amount payable on forfeiture of the bond reduced to Rs 5,000, to be deposited within six weeks.