Judgment This is an appeal from jail. The appellant in this case was proceeded against under section 109(a) and (b), Criminal Procedure Code. According to the evidence given by P.W.1 in the case, on 27th July, 1954, at about 00-15 hours in the night when he was going on rounds along with his men, he saw this appellant on the foot-steps of Bombay Stores at Harrington Road having his face covered with a white cloth. On seeing the policemen the appellant began to hide himself and move briskly. The police constable chased and caught him. When he was questioned by the police officer, the appellant did not give a proper reply. P.W.1 says he seized from the appellant’s waist an iron bar, M.O.1, and arrested him and brought him to the station. It is stated in his evidence that the appellant has no ostensible means of livelihood. In the first information report that was filed in this case, what is stated is that the appellant on spotting P.W.1 and the police approaching him began to move quickly, which aroused the suspicion of the police officers, and P.W.1 called him, and thereupon the appellant took to his heels. Then the party gave chase to him and caught him in Vydianatha Mudali Street, through which street he ran. It is stated in the report that the appellant gave his name as Ramaswami and stated he had come to see his friend. But the other answers which the appellant gave are not mentioned. Then the party gave chase to him and caught him in Vydianatha Mudali Street, through which street he ran. It is stated in the report that the appellant gave his name as Ramaswami and stated he had come to see his friend. But the other answers which the appellant gave are not mentioned. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether, in the circumstances, the appellant is liable to be proceeded against under clauses (a) and (b) of section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, which are as follows:- “Whenever a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class receives information- (a) that any person is taking precautions to conceal his presence with the local limits of such Magistrate’s jurisdiction, and that there is reason to believe that such person is taking such precautions with a view to committing any offence, or (b) that there is within such limits a person who has no ostensible means of subsistence, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself, Such Magistrate may, in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix.” It is clear that under clause (a) before any person could be proceeded against, he must be found to be taking precautions to conceal his presence and there must be reason to believe that such person is taking precautions with a view to committing any offence. The two requirements are, taking precautions to conceal and reason to believe that such person is taking precautions with a view to commit an offence. In this case, the appellant merely because he hid his face by means of a cloth when his presence was noticed by somebody going on the road, it cannot be said that he was taking precautions to conceal his presence. There is no concealment whatsoever of his presence, though undoubtedly there was a concealment of his face. From the mere fact that at the sight of the police officer he began to move briskly and when called out he ran, it cannot be said that he was taking precautions to conceal himself. There is no concealment whatsoever of his presence, though undoubtedly there was a concealment of his face. From the mere fact that at the sight of the police officer he began to move briskly and when called out he ran, it cannot be said that he was taking precautions to conceal himself. In my opinion, none of the ingredients necessary to proceed under the first part of clause (a) of section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, has been established in this case. On account of the seizure of M.O.1, there may be reason to believe that he was likely to commit an offence of house breaking. But then it must be preceded by taking precautions to conceal his presence, which has not been established in this case, so that the requirements of clause (a) of section 109 cannot be said to have been satisfied in this case. As regards clause (b), either the appellant has no ostensible means of subsistence, or he must be one who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself. In the evidence, the officer does not state what account the appellant gave of himself, so that this Court may find out whether it is a satisfactory account of the person or not. The mere opinion of the police officer that he did not give a proper reply is not sufficient to bring it within the scope of clause (b) of section 109. Whether the account given is satisfactory or not, it is for the Court to judge. It is necessary for the police officer therefore to state in Court what exactly the person stated or what account he gave of himself so that the Court may form an opinion as to whether the account given by the person proceeded against is satisfactory or not. No doubt, the police may be dissatisfied with the account given by the person and that will be sufficient ground for the police to proceed against him ; but for the Court to pass an order under section (b), it must have before it the account he gave to police officer to judge whether the account given is satisfactory or not. For that reason it is necessary for the police officer to state in Court the account the person gave. For that reason it is necessary for the police officer to state in Court the account the person gave. In this case, the Court is deprived of all means of judging whether the account given by the appellant is a satisfactory account of himself or not. But the police officer says that the appellant has no ostensible means of livelihood. The appellant has not repudiated this allegation by saying that he has any means of livelihood. In the circumstances, the utmost that can be said in this case is that the appellant would fall within the first part of clause (b), requirements of the provisions of clause (a) and the second portion of clause (b) of section 109, Criminal Procedure Code, not having been complied with. I think that in the circumstances the bond that is taken may be reduced to a period of six months. With this modification of the terms of the bond, the appeal is dismissed. R.M. ----- Sentence modified.