ORDER
L.P.N. Shahdeo, J.
1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been filed in the following circumstances.
2. The petitioners had preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 88 of the 1983 before the Sessions Judge, Palamau, at Daltonganj, from the order in which these petitioners were ordered to execute security bond Under Section 117 Cr. P.C. in a proceeding Under Section 107 Cr. P.C.
3. The appeal was admitted, but the Sessions Judge refused to grant stay of the order for execution of the security bond for keeping peace for a period of one year on the ground that the appellate Court has not been vested with the power to grant stay of the execution of the security bond under Sections 389(1) or 373 of the Cr. P.C.
4. It was submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the appeal was preferred Under Section 373 Cr. P.C. and, if the stay of the execution of bond is not granted, the appeal itself will become infructuous and the very purpose of filing the appeal shall stand defeated and, therefore, the court in suitable case has implicit power to grant stay of the execution of the bond when the appeal is admitted for hearing.
Section 373 reads as follows:
Appeal from orders requiring security or refusal to accept or rejecting surety for keeping peace or good behaviour, – Any person, –
(i) Who has been ordered under Section 117 to give security for keeping the peace or for good behaviour, or
(ii) Who is aggrieved by any order refusing to accept or rejecting a surety under Section 121
may appeal against such order to the Court of Session:
Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to persons the proceeding against whom are laid before a Sessions Judge in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4) of Section 122.
5. This shows that a provision for appeal has been made, if a person is asked to execute security bond under Section 117 Cr. P.C. for keeping peace. Since the appeal has been admitted, but the power which has been conferred under Section 373 Cr. P.C. for admission of such appeal has not provided for any consequential order in explicit term, but the very fact that the power has been vested under Section 373 Cr. P.C. to admit appeal it implies that the court can give consequential relief in suitable and appropriate cases, otherwise, the very purpose for which the appeal has been admitted will become frustrated and shall stand defeated by lapse of time. Therefore, in my view, the power conferred Under Section 373 Cr. P.C. also gives consequential relief which can be granted in the shape of stay of the execution bond in order to do proper justice otherwise the purpose of preferring the appeal will stand frustrated. Therefore, from the fact that power has been conferred for admitting the appeal and from power of such admission, necessary consequential reliefs flows for granting suitable reliefs in the shape of stay of the order appealed against.
6. In this view of the matter, it was necessary that the court which has admitted the appeal should have granted stay of the execution of bond.
7. There is yet another alternative remedy available, so far this Court is concerned, that in suitable cases the court in order to do justice and to prevent injustice can exercise inherent power Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to grant stay of the execution of the bond.
8. Apart from the aforesaid provision discussed above, it appears that Under Section 386 Cr. P.C. appellate court has been given and vested with various powers to pass any appropriate order in case of an appeal from conviction while disposing of the same. Under Section 386(e) Cr. P.C. a court has been conferred with the power to make any amendment “or any consequential or incidental order that may be just and proper. This provision K applicable in case of an order of conviction passed against any appellant accused. In a rulling reported in 1970, B.B.C.J. page 6, it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that in a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. a person against whom the proceeding has been initiated be deemed to be an accused and as such the provision under Section 313 Cr. P.C. applies in such a case. If these prepositions are accepted then these petitioners can be deemed to be accused and all the provisions made for preferring an appeal from an order of conviction passed against the accused, as provided under Sections 386 and 387 Cr. P.C. shall also be made applicable to the case of these petitioners. And, if these two provisions of the Cr. P.C. are made applicable in the case of the petitioners then admittedly the court has explicit power conferred under these two sections to grant necessary reliefs in the shape of stay of the execution bond.
9. For the reasons stated above, this application is allowed, the impugned order refusing to grant stay of execution bond is quashed and the stay granted by this Court shall continue till the disposal of the appeal in the court below. Since the appeal is pending since the year 1983, the Sessions Judge shall dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferrably within 3 months from the date of the receipt of this order. Let the records of the case be sent down forthwith.