On 3 March, 1967 the respondent Mrs. Pestonji filed an application and lodged a companyplaint in the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poona under Section 107 of the CrPC alleging that the appellants had threatened to kill the son of the respondent Mrs. Pestonji and threatened to endanger the safety of the members of the respondents family.
The appellant Govinder Singh said that he was number ready to give in writing any surety or any bond.
On 16 January, 1968 the appellants made an application in revision to the High Court at Bombay against the order of the Collector.
On that date, the Sub Inspector of Ghorpadi Police station was examined.
On that date the appellants attended the companyrt.
By an order dated 10 June, 1968 the High Court found that the Additional Collector rightly held that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was wrongly stated to be under Section 91 of the CrPC and that the Additional Collector had companyfirmed the findings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate by holding that the order was under Section 117 3 of the CrPC.
1000/ each with one surety of the like amount for their appearance in this Court under Section 91 of Cr.
On 11 November, 1967 the Sub Divisional Magisrrate, Poona passed an order as follows This is a case under Section 107 Cr.
On 10 May, 1967 a numberice was issued by the Magistrate requiring the appellants to appear in the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poona and to show cause why they should number be asked to furnish a surety and a personal bond for a sum of Rs.
On 11 November, 1967 the appellant Narinder Singh was number present in companyrt.
PC against two opponents Govinder Singh Verma, Narinder Singh Virdi and D.D Zigade.
The case was adjourned till 23 November, 1967.
The appellants then made an application under Section 435 of the CrPC in the companyrt of the Additional Collector and the Additional District Magistrate, Poona against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed on 11 December, 1967 The Collector on 19 December, 1967, upheld the order as one under Section 117 3 of the CrPC and found that the Sub Divisional Magistrate wrongly mentioned Section 91 of the CrPC in place of Section 117 3 of the CrPC.
The case was adjourned from time to time until 3 81 967.
On 10 May, 1967 the appellant Govinder Singh appeared before the Magistrate and his statement was recorded.
The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate came to be passed under the following circumstances.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 10 June, 1968 of the High Court at Bombay refusing to set aside the order dated 11 December, 1967 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Poona.
