Sachin Bansal 12 September 2018
Rama chary Rachakonda (Secunderabad/Telangana state Highcourt practice watsapp no.9989324294 ) 12 September 2018
In Madhu Limaye and Anr. v. SDM Monghyr and Ors. 1971, Supreme Court has explained the terms public tranquility and public order so that there are no grounds for confusion; the court held that public tranquility and public order partially overlap each other. While a person playing loud music may disturb public tranquility but not the order. The expression public order although includes tranquility, it also presupposes the absence of insurrection, riot or crimes of violence.
The executive magistrate mentioned in Section 107 is a part of the executive wing of the government and not the judiciary. This section has specifically vested powers in the hands of an Executive magistrate to show cause such person about whom s(he) may have received information as stated above. Such information may be received by a police who has witnessed the said person regarding whom the police may have an apprehension of committing a breach of peace or public tranquility. It is to be noted that section 107 does not vest any power in the hands of the police to arrest. However, according to a consultation paper on the law relating to arrest written in 1999, by the then chairman of law commission Justice B.P. Jeevan Redd, it was found that
“this provision (Section 107) does not empower a police officer to arrest such persons. Yet, the fact remains that a large number of persons are arrested under this provision as well.”
TGK REDDI 13 September 2018
No matter, because you're not convicted.