JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule to show cause why the prosecution of the Petitioner under sec. 19 of Act V of 1861 should not be set aside on the ground that his appointment under sec. 17 of the Act was not justified by the terms of that section. It appears that on a recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nawadah, the District Magistrate of Gaya appointed the Petitioner and 12 other persons as special constables under Act V of 1861, and the Petitioner was, also by an order of the District Magistrate, appointed a special lance constable for a period of 6 months, commencing from the 17th December 1907. 2. On the 14th January 1908 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Nawadah issued a notice to him calling on him to appear before him on the 23rd January 1908, to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for not obeying these orders. 3. By an order of the District Magistrate of Gaya, dated the 28th February 1908, he is now being prosecuted under sec. 19 of the Act, and it is this order we are asked to Bet aside. 4. It has been urged by Mr. P. L. Ray Counsel for the Petitioner that as the appointment of the Petitioner under sec. 17 of the Act, was not warranted by law, he was justified in refusing to act as special constable, and that therefore his prosecution under sec. 19 of the Act is illegal. 5. Mr. Ray bas drawn our attention to the case Beni Madhub Singh v. The Emperor 12 C. W. N. 36 (1908) as an authority for his contention. We feel no doubt that the order under sec. 17 of the Act was inexpedient and unnecessary. The Petitioner had a dispute about property with a lady named Najima Begum, who, he alleged, was the mistress of his father now dead. 6. It is entirely this dispute, and not any riot or general disturbance of the peace, which led to his being appointed a special constable. The Petitioner complains that the Sub-divisional Magistrate has espoused the cause of Najima Begum, and has consequently instituted various criminal proceedings against him, in which he has been uniformly successful and finally bad been appointed a special and a lance constable so as to interfere with the prosecution of his civil dispute with Najima Begum. The Petitioner complains that the Sub-divisional Magistrate has espoused the cause of Najima Begum, and has consequently instituted various criminal proceedings against him, in which he has been uniformly successful and finally bad been appointed a special and a lance constable so as to interfere with the prosecution of his civil dispute with Najima Begum. We need not enquire into this matter: suffice It to say that in the case of Beni Madhab Singh v. The Emperor 12 C. W. N. 36 (1908), it has been laid down that "the circumstances which justify an order under sec. 17 are that a disturbance of the peace is apprehended and that the Police force available is insufficient to preserve the peace, and protect the inhabitants of the village where disturbances are apprehended. The same principles were laid down in Gopinath Parya v. Emprets 10 C. W. N. 82 : s. c. 2 C. L. J. 555 (1886). We doubt if there was ever any danger of a disturbance of the peace. If there was, it would appear that it was not such as the ordinary Police were unable to cope with. There bas been no disturbance of any kind. If there had been the Petitioner could not, as a special constable, have prevented it and there was really no necessity to appoint him to be a special constable. If the Magistrate apprehended that the Petitioner was about to commit a breach of the peace, he could have instituted proceedings against him under sec 107, C. P. C, but in our opinion the orders appointing him a special constable and particularly a special lance constable, were entirely unnecessary and inexpedient. For these reasons, we make the rule absolute and set aside the order for the prosecution of the Petitioner under sec 19. This order will also govern the case of the Petitioner Rashinath in revision case 339 of 1908 : the order for whose prosecution under sec. 19, Act V of 1861 is also set aside.