JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. The applicant and four others were called upon by a Magistrate under section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure, to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds with sureties for their good behaviour. According to the order initiating the proceedings, action was taken against them on the ground that they were habitual thieves and robbers and were taking precautions to conceal their presence within the limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. There is no evidence that the applicant is a habitual thief or robber, or was taking precautions to conceal his presence within the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The magistrate seems to have required him to furnish security because he could not “give a satisfactory account of himself” (see clause (b), section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure). The applicant is a peon in the employ of the Municipality. His place of residence and occupation were well-known. 2. It seems to me that he is not a person of whom it can be said that he was unable to give a satisfactory account of himself. The District Magistrate on appeal says that the applicant prowls about at night and is a companion of scoundrels and that he bolts from the police and is armed with and uses a lathi. The Magistrate seems to think that the words “give a satisfactory account of himself” mean satisfy the Magistrate that he spends his time or at least his leisure hours in a satisfactory manner. I cannot agree. Whether there was ground for taking action against the applicant under any other section, I cannot say. But it seems to me that the proceedings taken under section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be supported. I set aside the Magistrate's order.