JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule on the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet to show cause why either the appeal presented to him by the Petitioner or the reference made to the Sessions Judge should not be heard on its merits and why such orders should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The Petitioner was directed to furnish security for good behavior and the term for which such security was required being in excess of one year the matter was referred to the Sessions Judge under the provisions of sec. 123, C. Cr. P. Previous to the making of this it appears that the Petitioner appealed to the District Magistrate under sec. 406 of the Code. That appeal has been "struck off." But on the reference made to him, the Sessions Judge did not arrive at any conclusion as to the merits. He directed that the sureties offered by the Petitioner for his good behavior should be accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, although the Deputy Commissioner had already found these sureties to be Insufficient. The order of the Sessions Judge purports to be passed under cl. (3) to sec. 123, but the sub-section clearly contemplates a decision by the Court on the merits of the order demanding security for good behavior. It does not, in our opinion, authorize the Sessions Judge to consider the sufficiency of the security offered. 2. Under all the circumstances of the case we think that the proper order to pass would be that the Sessions Judge should proceed to hear and dispose of the reference made to him and we order accordingly. The rule is made absolute in these terms.