JUDGMENT Lort-Williams, J. - This is a reference u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. A motion was made on December 10, 1934, and the Sub-Divisional Officer of Madaripur, summoned the petitioner Lokendra Lal Pal Choudhuri u/s 188 of the Indian Penal Code, for not obeying an ex parte order of injunction made by the Deputy Magistrate on October 12, 1934, u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub-Divisional Officer also started a proceeding u/s 107 of the Code against the petitioner, because he apprehended that the petitioner would commit a breach of the peace regarding a Jetty which was the subject-matter of dispute in the proceedings u/s 144, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The Sessions Judge recommends that all the three orders should be set aside. The first order u/s 144 was that the petitioner should remove the Jetty which had been already completed on October 5, 1934. This order the Sessions Judge considers illegal and we agree with him. 4. In the case of Kusum Kumari Debi and Another Vs. Hem Nalini Debi, AIR 1933 Cal 724 it was decided that u/s 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a Magistrate is entitled to make a restrictive order preventing the opposite party from doing an act; but the section does not enable him to make a mandatory order directing the opposite party to do some act. 5. In the case of B.N. Sasmal Vs. Emperor, AIR 1931 Cal 263 this Court held that the words "to abstain from a certain act" in Section 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code, do not empower Magistrates to make a positive order requiring a person to do a particular thing. 6. In In the matter of Ghulam Durbzsh 10 WR 36 Cr there is a case under the corresponding Section 62 of the old Code to a similar effect. 7. This order being without jurisdiction, obviously the subsequent order u/s 188 was without jurisdiction. Moreover, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to take cognizance of a case u/s 188, because the offence complained of was disobedience of his own order. He must make a complaint u/s 195; Section 487 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits the trial of the case u/s 188 in these circumstances by the Magistrate. 8. Moreover, the Sub-Divisional Officer had no power to take cognizance of a case u/s 188, because the offence complained of was disobedience of his own order. He must make a complaint u/s 195; Section 487 of the Criminal Procedure Code prohibits the trial of the case u/s 188 in these circumstances by the Magistrate. 8. With regard to proceedings u/s 107, the learned Sessions Judge says that no application about apprehension of a breach of the peace was made regarding a completed jetty. It is not clear from the record whether the dispute was about one jetty or a jetty plus extensions to it. But in any case the learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that at the time he made the reference, there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace. It is to be borne in mind that the proceedings u/s 107 were started in November last and the reference was made by the learned Sessions Judge so far back as January 18 of this year and it is probable that the local conditions had considerably altered in the meantime. The result is that all these orders are set aside. If now there is any immediate apprehension of a breach of the peace by any of the parties, further proceedings can be instituted against one or both. 9. The reference is accepted. Jack, J. 10. I agree.