((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.128 OF 2009 Sachin Shantaram Raut & ors. Petitioner versus The Executive Magistrate, Vasai, Dist.Thane & anr. Respondents K.S.Patil for petitioner. S.S.Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 17th April 2009 PC : 1. Rule. Learned APP waives service. Taken up for final disposal. 2. In August 2008 the first respondent initiated proceedings under Chapter-VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code of 1973"). A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why a bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- should not be taken from them. The show cause notice was made returnable on 29th August 2008. From Exhibit-B it appears that on 29th August 2008, ((-2-)) the petitioners appeared before the first respondent and they were called upon to furnish interim bonds. Accordingly, the petitioners furnished interim bonds on the same day. A show cause notice dated 3rd November 2008 was issued to the petitioners by the first respondent calling upon them to show cause as to why interim bonds furnished by them should not be forfeited as they had allegedly committed an offence thereafter. On 31st December 2008 the first respondent passed an order purportedly under section 466 of the said Code by which he directed that the proceedings will continue even after expiry of period of six months. He directed that the bonds earlier furnished by the petitioners having been forfeited, all the petitioners should furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that when this petition was before this Court and was adjourned repeatedly, the petitioners were taken in custody on the basis of the impugned order and were released only after four days. 4. The submission of the counsel for the ((-3-)) petitioners is that the impugned order is completely illegal. He submitted that the impugned order is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The learned APP justified the impugned order. The learned APP pointed out that after 31st March 2009 on two occasions communications were made by the office of the Public Prosecutor to the first respondent but the concerned officer has not attended the Court alongwith with the record. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same has been purportedly passed in exercise of powers under section 466 of the said Code. Reference to section 466 of the said Code in the order itself shows complete non application of mind by the first respondent. Section 466 of the said Code deals with the defect or the error in the order of attachment. Section 466 has nothing to do with the proceedings under Chapter-VIII of the said Code. 6. Under sub section 6 of section 116 of the said Code it is provided that an enquiry shall be completed within a period of six months from ((-4-)) the date of commencement. Sub-section 6 further provides that if such an enquiry is not completed, the proceedings under the chapter shall, on expiry of such period, stand terminated unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. 7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 31st December 2008 shows that no special reasons have been recorded by the learned Executive Magistrate. Without mentioning the special reasons, the power under sub section 6 of section 116 could not have been exercised by the learned Magistrate. Apart from this fact, without following the procedure and in breach of principles of natural justice the learned Magistrate straight away directed the petitioners to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/-. The said direction is completely illegal and contrary to the provisions of Chapter-VIII of the said Code. It is shocking to note that on the basis of such illegal order, the petitioners were taken into custody. 8. Hence, I pass following order :- ((-5-)) (a) The impugned order dated 31st December 2008 is quashed and set aside; (b) It is made clear that the proceedings of Chapter Case No.59 of 2008 stands terminated; (c) This order will not take away the remedy of the petitioners of filing appropriate proceedings seeking appropriate reliefs; (d) The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. (A.S.OKA, J.)