JUDGMENT : Panigrahi, C.J. - The Petitioners have been bound over to execute bonds u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The dispute to the village tank which has been recorded in the name of the first party. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate held an enquiry on 5-9-52, and held that the opposite parties had the right to fish in the said tank. The Petitioners (who were the second party) however persisted in creating trouble instead of resorting to the Civil Court for settling the dispute The Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that he saw the members of the second party actually digging the tank when he visited the spot on 2-5-53. The Magistrate, after recording evidence found that the facts proved were sufficient to justify the inference that there was an apprehension of a reach of the peace as the Petitioners were determined to assert their right to the tank by violence. 3. In support of this revision Mr. D.N. Sahu raised three points. The first is that the Magistrate examined the members of the second party u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure as if they had been accused of an offence arid thus committed an illegality. It was open to the Petitioners to tender evidence as they were certainly entitled to do, and the mere fact that the statements were recorded by the Magistrate does not vitiate the enquiry certainly there is nothing illegal in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate, at best it was only an irregularity which does not in any case affect the merits of the case. The second point raised by Mr. Sahu is that the notice u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure does not give sufficient notice the facts alleged against the Petitioners. The notice clearly shows that the Magistrate was satisfied on a perusal of the Police reports that the Petitioners were being accused of resorting to violence with a view to assert their right to the disputed tank. It cannot therefore be disputed that the Petitioners had ample notice of what the police report was about and of the facts charged against them. Finally, Mr. Sahu pointed out that the police Sub-Inspector had, on the same date, submitted a report suggesting that action may be taken against the members of the first party u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure as they had no ostensible claim to the disputed tank. Finally, Mr. Sahu pointed out that the police Sub-Inspector had, on the same date, submitted a report suggesting that action may be taken against the members of the first party u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure as they had no ostensible claim to the disputed tank. The Magistrate, however, refused to take action against them as he was satisfied that their claim was supported by documentary evidence. 4. I am satisfied that none of the points raised by Mr. Sahu has any substance. I should also like to note in this connection that the order passed by the Magistrate has spent itself out. The Petitioners were called upon to execute bonds by an order dated 31-5-54 to keep the peace for a period of one year, and this order expired over two months ago. 5. The revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed