(S) AIR 1955 MADRAS 596 (V.42, C.175 Oct) "In re, Saroja" Judgement ORDER : -The accused having pleaded guilty to an offence under S.75, City Police Act, the legality and propriety of the sentence alone are open for consideration. 2. The offence viz., fighting, no doubt, merited the fine of Rs.10/- or in default one weeks R. I.; but I see no reason whatsoever to uphold the binding over to keep peace under S.106 Cr. P.C. for a period of six months on her own bond for Rs.50/- with one surety for a like sum for two reasons, namely, that there is no indication even, in the judgment, as to why the Magistrate was of opinion that it was necessary to require petitioner to execute a bond for keeping the peace; and secondly, in the instant case the binding over is an undesirable course. 3. The Honorary Magistrate, Bench Court, has not even indicated as to why he considered in the circumstances of this case that the security to keep peace with one surety should be asked for a period of six months, especially when he knew that asking for security would be tantamount to keeping this woman in jail for a period of six months, which punishment could not be awarded for the petty offence itself. 4. Though it is not necessary to give an express finding with respect to the facts which in his opinion makes S.106 applicable to the case in cases where the offence of which the accused is convicted is one which ipso facto involves the use of violence, still the Magistrate should record his opinion that it is necessary in the case to require the convicted persons to execute a bond for keeping the peace. Otherwise an appellate or Revisional Court would not be able to find out whether in terms of S.106 (first part) the Magistrate has applied his mind and passed a judicial order: - Baidyanath v. Nibaran, 30 Cal 93 (A); - Rafatulla Pramanik v. Rajek Sardar, AIR 1930 Cal 646 (B); - Abdul Gaffar v. Mohamed Mirza, AIR 1931 Cal 645 (C); - Jib Lal v. Jagmohan, 26 Cal 576 (D), - Sheo Bhajan Singh v. Mosawi, 27 Cal 983 (E); - Abdul Ali v. Emperor, AIR 1916 Cal 883 (2) (F); - Haroon v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Sind 87 (G); - Rajaram v. Govinda, AIR 1925 Nag 36 (H); - Bans Gopal v. Emperor, AIR 1939 Oudh 45 (I); - In re, Ramaswami Thevan, AIR 1923 Mad 618 (J); - Kunhikanan v. Emperor, 1934 Mad WN (Cr) 98 (K); distinguishing - Muthia Chetty v. Emperor, 29 Mad 190 (L); and - In Re Thirumal Reddi, AIR 1923 Mad 133 (M); - In re Subbiah Thevan, AIR 1942 Mad 501 (N); distinguishing - Muhammad Rahim v. Emperor, AIR 1926 All 144 (O); and - Jai Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Pat 37 (P). Secondly, it is generally undesirable where a person is charged with some petty offence as here to tack on to some small sentence of fine an order under S.106 Cr. P.C, which in most cases in view of the poverty of the accused persons would necessitate the remaining in jail for a long period which very much exceeded the punishment legally permissible for the offence of which the accused were charged. This section should be very sparingly invoked where the offence committed is a petty one as under the Madras Town Nuisances Act, III of 1889 - In re, Arumugha Tevar, AIR 1943 Mad 169 App 170 (Q), - In re, Balian, AIR 1938 Mad 795 at p.796 (R). 5. Therefore, I have no hesitation in setting aside the order binding over the accused to keep peace for a period of six months on her own bond with one surety. The result is the accused will be released from custody if she is detained for not executing the bond with one surety. 6. This Revision petition is allowed to the above extent and it is to be hoped that Honorary Magistrates will not abuse S.106, Cr. P.C, as in the instant case. Order accordingly.