JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The Petitioners were directed to keep the peace u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure and to execute individual bonds with a surety of Rs. 300/- each, to keep the peace for a period of six months, by an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilgiri on 28.3.1954 and the appeal filed by the Petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Petitioner No. 1, Lokanath Das, it is stated, belongs to the communist party and No. 1 of the first party belongs to the congress party. They contested the previous elections to the local Gram Panchayat. On 31-5-1954, a report was sent by the police to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In that report of the police, there is absolutely nothing stated about the wrongful acts committed by the Petitioners and that there is any apprehension of imminent breach of the peace. On receipt of the same report, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balasore, passed an order on 28-6-1954 to the effect: "P.R. u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure received. Call on the second party to show cause why they should not be bound down u/s 107 by 13-7-1954." The notice issued to the Petitioners u/s 112 Code of Criminal Procedure is very vague and is only to the effect that according to the police report their movements may lead to the breach of the peace and therefore they are to show cause why proceedings u/s 107 should not be launched against them. In showing cause the Petitioners stated in their counter that the notice served upon them does not show any particulars of their movements and is very vague. The Petitioners also contended that they had no opportunity to adduce evidence. 2. Though toe Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge held that the evidence of the first party is interested evidence yet they directed that the Petitioners should execute individual bonds of Rs. 300/- each. The Magistrate in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment held, "No doubt as the cross-examination of the P.Ws. shows the P.Ws. are not disinterested witnesses and are really the persons who are directly affected by the actions of the second party and that there is also political rivalry between them. 300/- each. The Magistrate in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment held, "No doubt as the cross-examination of the P.Ws. shows the P.Ws. are not disinterested witnesses and are really the persons who are directly affected by the actions of the second party and that there is also political rivalry between them. Unfortunately their testimony is also not as clear as it should be regarding the particular actions time and place of the various incidents deposed to and this is probably due to the lack of thoroughness of the-prosecuting staff who conducted the prosecution, There is also no sufficient corroboration on the facts of various incidents", but he passed the order saying "Nevertheless, considering the back ground and circumstances of the case and the evidence recorded on the whole I find sufficient material which necessitates to take steps against the second party, and bind them down for keeping peace for a particular period. "In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge also observed", "May be the main P.Ws. belong to one party and as such are partisan witnesses, but the role that it is unsafe to rely upon such evidence cannot be extended to such cases as these." 3. Mr. Rath, on behalf of the Petitioners, contends that on these findings of both the courts below, no order should have been passed. He also contends that the notice u/s 112 Code of Criminal Procedure breng very vague, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass order against the Petitioners. He also contends that the Petitioners had no opportunity of adducing evidence though there is an endorsement of the Mukhtar in the order sheet that they have no defence witnesses. 4. The learned Sessions Judge held that it is no doubt true that the preliminary order does not disclose the grounds on which the breach of peace was apprehended but he did not accept the contentions of the Appellants before him on the ground that in two cases reported, in Sanatan Baliarsingh v. State 19 C.L.T. 370 and Raghunath Singh and Others Vs. The State it was held that the order for that reason could not be held to be illegal and that unless serious prejudice is shown on account of the vagueness of the order, it does not vitiate the proceedings. Mr. The State it was held that the order for that reason could not be held to be illegal and that unless serious prejudice is shown on account of the vagueness of the order, it does not vitiate the proceedings. Mr. Rath contends that the Petitioners were greatly prejudiced on account of the vague order issued by the Magistrate and that in the said order there were no facts to indicate that the Magistrate either considered the report before him or in fact, stated the grounds on which there is an apprehension of breach of the peace. Under such circumstances, Mr. Rath contends that the order is illegal and in support of his contention he relied upon the decision in Birdhaj Roy Vs. The State. In that case, K.C. Das Gupta and Debabrata Mukherjee, JJ. observed "Under Section 107 of the Code when a Magistrate concerned is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility, the Magistrate, if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding, may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond. Section 112 of the Code provides that when a Magistrate deems it necessary to require only (any) person to show cause in this manner, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties required. If the person in respect of whom such an order is made is present in court, it shall be read over to him and the substance thereof shall be explained to him." They also observed that What is important is that the Magistrate should record in his order the nature of the information received. How important this is considered by the Legislature appears from the form which has been set out in Schedule v. which contains all the forms for use for different purposes of the Code u/s 555, Code of Criminal Procedure" In the case of Krupasindhu Panigrahi Vs. Rex it was held that- "An order u/s 112 is not a formal order but is intended to give sufficient notice to the individual against whom the order is made, of the accusation made against him. Rex it was held that- "An order u/s 112 is not a formal order but is intended to give sufficient notice to the individual against whom the order is made, of the accusation made against him. The section in specific terms says that the order shall set forth the substance of the information received. The Magistrate who drew up the proceedings has entirely ignored the circumstances of this section in so far as he has failed to set out the substance of the information before him. The failure to annex a copy of the police report is itself a grave irregularity which, in the circumstances of this case, must be held to have vitiated the proceedings. The decisions relied upon by the Sessions Judge do not in my view militate in any way against the decisions noted above which insist on the imperative provisions of law contained in Sections 107 and 112 of Code of Criminal Procedure being strictly observed. In the first' case Sanatan Baliarsingh v. State 19 C.L.T. 370 relied upon by the Sessions Judge it was held that, "A notice issued to a person against whom a proceeding u/s 107 is deemed necessary to be started must set forth the substance of the information received. He should be supplied with substance of his overt acts for the purpose of his information so as to enable him to know the charges he has to meet. Information is something other than generalisation of the nature of the overt acts. Generalisation tends to be vague and, therefore, should be avoided. For it does not amount to fulfillment of the law to keep the person in dark as to substantive facts and just to villify him and give out general character into which the particular acts can be classified." But it was held in this case that, "A defect in the notice issued by a Magistrate u/s 112 does not vitiate the proceeding started u/s 107. It is a defect curable provided there has been no prejudice to the person proceeded against". In the particular case of the facts before the learned Judge, the notice issued u/s 112 did not contain certain facts and the evidence in this case disclosed that the accused was not prejudiced in any way. It is a defect curable provided there has been no prejudice to the person proceeded against". In the particular case of the facts before the learned Judge, the notice issued u/s 112 did not contain certain facts and the evidence in this case disclosed that the accused was not prejudiced in any way. But in the case before me, it is clear that the Order of the Magistrate dated 28th June, 1954, only says that notice to show cause should issue and the notice is actually issued to the Petitioners without a copy of the Police report and the terms of the notice are very vague. The wrongful acts alleged against the accused are not at all stated therein. Under those circumstances It was not possible for the accused to meet the case against them and in the written objections filed by them, they expressly stated that the allegations in the notice served upon their were very vague. Even then it does not appear if any particulars were furnished to the accused. It is also clear that the accused did not produce any defence witness to meet the allegations against them. No doubt the learned Sessions Judge observed that the Mukhtar noted in the order sheet that he had no evidence but the accused in the revision before me have complained that they have had no opportunity to give evidence. Taking these circumstances together and after perusing the judgments of the lower courts and hearing Mr. Rath I am convinced that the Petitioners were prejudiced in their trial on account of vagueness of the notice. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that the proceeding in this case is vitiated in as much as notice is not in accordance with the requirements of the law. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also read to me the report of the police, submitted to the Magistrate on which the Magistrate proceeded to take action. As far as the Petitioners are concerned, the police report is harmless. It does not allege anything against the accused to the effect that they were about to commit any wrongful acts and that there was any imminent breach of the peace. This leads me to conclude that the learned Magistrate has issued, the notice without even reading the police report. This also is contrary to the express enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This leads me to conclude that the learned Magistrate has issued, the notice without even reading the police report. This also is contrary to the express enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is absolutely necessary for a first class Magistrate acting under the Code of Criminal Procedure to follow the provisions of law and issue notice according to the law, if they are to maintain law and order but by issuing such notice as in this case no useful purpose will be served to achieve the object. As shown above, the evidence in this case also appears to be highly interested. That is the finding not only of the trying Magistrate but also of the Sessions Judge. Under the circumstances, the order complained against is illegal and is to be set aside. The revision petition is allowed and the order of the Magistrate is set aside. The bonds executed by the Petitioners stand, cancelled. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed