JUDGMENT Prinsep and Mitra, JJ. - In this case the Petitioner wag bound over to give security for good behaviour u/s 110 Clause (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by reason of his being "so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community." On appeal the District Magistrate found that that character was not proved but he nevertheless maintained the order, inasmuch as he found on the evidence that the Petitioner "habitually committed, or attempted to commit, offences involving a breach of the peace" within the terms of Section 110 Clause (e), which also formed the subject of the enquiry in the Court of the first Magistrate. The offences to which the Petitioner is said to be addicted may be described as acts of immorality in attempting to seduce married women and behaving indecently and immodestly towards them.. These, however, though offences under the law, are not offences "involving a breach of the peace." We have been asked to understand the expression "offences involving a breach of the peace" as offences provoking or likely to lead to a breach of the peace. We are, however, met by Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which forms a part of the same Chapter as Section 110 in which the same words are used and certainly in Section 106 those words would not bear the interpretation which we are now asked to put on them. We must therefore hold that offences involving a breach of the peace mean offences in which a breach of the peace is an ingredient. No doubt in the interests of the community it may be desirable to control the habits and actions of a man who is said to behave in the manner in which the Petitioner is described to have behaved, but we cannot find that he has brought himself within the terms of the law so as to require that he should give security for good behaviour. The rule is, therefore, made absolute and the order for security set aside.