JUDGMENT 1. These are four rules to show cause why the conviction of and fines imposed on the Petitioners under sec. 19, Act V of 1861, should not be set aside. The Petitioners were appointed special constables under sec. 17, Act V of 1861, neglected to serve as such and had been prosecuted and fined under sec. 19 of the Police Act. 2. The facts are that a Sub-Inspector of Police reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Aurangabad that there was a dispute about certain land in which the Petitioners were concerned which was likely to lead to a breach of the peace. He therefore recommended that the Petitioners should be appointed special constables and this was done. The Petitioners refused to receive their letters of appointment and on appearing before the Magistrate in the month of August last he said he did not require their services, as additional Police had now been quartered in the villages where breaches of the peace were apprehended. Notwithstanding this, the Petitioners were subsequently prosecuted under sec. 19, Act V of 1861 and fined Rs. 40 each. 3. The grounds on which these rules have been supported are that the Police officer who reported to the Magistrate was a Sub-Inspectar and not an Inspector, as required by sec. 17, Act V of 1861, (2) that the letters of appointment were never delivered to the Petitioners and (3) that their appointment as special constables was inexpedient. 4. The first two pleas are of a technical nature. But we consider that these rules must be made absolute on the ground that the order under sec. 17 was an improper one and that the conviction of the Petitioners under sec. 19 of the Act) is bad. 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. 5. It is idle to say that in this case any such circumstances existed. We are satisfied they did not. Then the Magistrate after telling the Petitioners that he did not want their services, should not have prosecuted them under sec. 19. The Magistrate now says the Petitioners were prosecuted for neglect to serve as special constables during the period antecedent to his order dispensing with their services. We are satisfied they did not. Then the Magistrate after telling the Petitioners that he did not want their services, should not have prosecuted them under sec. 19. The Magistrate now says the Petitioners were prosecuted for neglect to serve as special constables during the period antecedent to his order dispensing with their services. But if the Petitioners' services were not required, and we are satisfied they were never required, it was quite unnecessary and improper to prosecute them for disobeying an order which should never have been passed. We set aside the convictions, and sentences. The fines, if paid, must to be refunded.