JUDGMENT Mallik, J. - The three petitioners in this case have been convicted u/s 504, I. P.C. They have also been directed to execute bonds u/s 106, Criminal P.C. The petitioners obtained the present rule on the ground that the order u/s 106, Criminal P.C. is illegal, inasmuch as the requirements of law under that section are not satisfied. 2. The only point that arises for consideration in the present rule is what interpretation is to be put on the expression "offences involving a breach of the peace" that is to be found in Section 106. On behalf of the petitioners it was said that this expression means only offences of which a breach of the peace is a necessary ingredient and in which the occurrence of a breach of the peace is actually found. On behalf of the opposite party it was urged that this expression should be given a wider interpretation and it should be held to include not only offences of which a breach of the peace is a necessary ingredient and in which the occurrence of a breach of the peace is actually found but also cases of offences where an evident intention to commit a breach of the peace is expressly found. The views that have been taken by the different High Courts on this point are divergent and the decisions of this High Court on the point are also far from uniform. In the case of Asoke Prasanna Bal Vs. Emperor, AIR 1930 Cal 802 , Cuming, J. following the case of Arun Samanta v. Emperor [1903] 30 Cal. 366, took the narrow view of the expression while Jack, J., in Rafatulla Pramanik Vs. Rajek Sardar and Another, AIR 1930 Cal 646 was inclined to put the wider interpretation on the expression. Having regard to the object underlying Section 106 which is prevention of offences, I am inclined to put a wider interpretation on the clause offences involving a breach of the peace" and to hold that the clause "offences involving a breach of the peace" includes not only offences of which a breach of the peace is a necessary ingredient and in which a breach of the peace has actually occurred but includes also cases of offences in which an evident intention to commit a breach of the peace is expressly found. This view finds support from a decision in Abdul Ali Chowdhury v. Emperor [1916] 43 Cal. 671 which is the latest decision on the point by a Division Bench of this High Court. In this case, the learned Judges relying on an earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court in ILR Gal. 576 accepted the view that the expression "offences involving a breach of the peace" should be interpreted in the wider sense. 3. In the present case both the Courts below not only found the petitioners guilty u/s 504, I. P.C. but clearly held in addition that the petitioners had the intention to break the peace. 4. For the reasons stated above, I would discharge the rule. Patterson, J. 5. I agree.