JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule is against an order dated the 21st April, 1968 passed by Sri D. N. Chatterjee, sub-Divisional Magistrate Rampurhat, district Birbhum, drawing up proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of criminal Procedure against the second party petitioners who are twenty in number, along with members of the first-party, directing them to show cause by the 4th May, 1968 as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000/- each with one surety of like amount each, to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. 2. THE facts leading on to the present Rule can be put in a short compass. On a report submitted by the police on the 19th April, 1968 under section 107|117, Sub-section (3) Cr. P. C. against both the first and the second-parties, the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampurhat, was pleased by his order dated the 21st April, 1968 to draw up proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. against both the parties, asking them to show cause by 4. 5. 68 as to why they should not be directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000/- each with one surety of like amount each, to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The police report stated, among others, that there was dispute and friction between the two parties originating on the 24th" December, 1966 when Majahar Sk. and other members of the second-party looted away paddy from the land of gangadhar Mondal, uncle of Mukti mondal of the first-party. A case was started under Sections 379/147 of the Indian Penal Code which ended in a charge-sheet against the members of the second-party on the 28th February, 1967 and was Sub-judice at the time of the filing of the police report. Since then, the members of the second-party had committed many wrongful, acts to put the members of the first-party in trouble and several cases were started over the same. The members of the first-party also committed some wrongful acts against the members of the second-party over which again some cases were started which are now sub judice. As members of both the parties were likely to commit wrongful acts and commit breach of the peace and disturb the public tranquility, the recommendation was that they may be directed to show cause under Section 107 Cr. As members of both the parties were likely to commit wrongful acts and commit breach of the peace and disturb the public tranquility, the recommendation was that they may be directed to show cause under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and that pending the completion of the enquiry, both the parties may be called upon to execute bonds under Section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. The matter thereafter proceeded and some of the members of the two parties appeared before the learned Magistrate and were directed to be released on bail. The order dated the 21st april, 1968, drawing up the proceedings under section 107 Cr. P. C. by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has been impugned by the second-party-petitioners and the present Rule was obtained. Mr. G. B. Hazra, Advocate, who led Mrs. Jyotirmoyee Nag, Advocate, was allowed by her to argue the case on behalf of the second-party-petitioners. In his impassioned argument Mr. Hazra raised a four-fold contention. The first contention of Mr. Hazra is that the provisions of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are preventive and not punitive and in that context he pin-pointed the intention of the legislature in enjoining the said provisions, conferring wide powers interfering with the liberty of the subject and therefore required to be exercised strictly in accordance with law. The learned Advocate referred to some cases in this context. The second contention of Mr. Hazra is that the police report leading on to the present proceedings does not bring the case within the ambit of section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at best purports to establish some offences under the Indian Penal Code for which the proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. cannot do duty. The third contention of Mr. Hazra is that the form of the order is bad as also the notice issued there under, not conforming to the mandatory provisions of Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vitiating the resultant proceedings. The fourth and last submission of Mr. P. C. cannot do duty. The third contention of Mr. Hazra is that the form of the order is bad as also the notice issued there under, not conforming to the mandatory provisions of Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vitiating the resultant proceedings. The fourth and last submission of Mr. Hazra is that even the order itself as passed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Rampurhat, drawing up the purported proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Ciminal Procedure, is ex facie bad in law and improper because it calls upon the party concerned to be of good behaviour and the same is clearly outside the scope of a proceeding under section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Hazra was robustly optimistic of his arguments and at one stage urged that the submissions made by him are incontrovertible. This Court, however, did not share his optimism without hearing the other side and Mr. Jahar lal Roy, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State also contended that the arguments of Mr. Hazra are not sustainable in law or on merits and that in any event, he wanted to join issue with the same. Mr. Roy has contended In the first place that the sub-Divisional Magistrate has not in any way overlooked the purpose of a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being preventive and not punitive and as such the contention of Mr. Hazra is more technical than real. As regards the second submission of Mr. Hazra, Mr. Boy contended that the police report does make out a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the parties concerned were likely to commit a breach of the peace disturbing thereby the public tranquility. As to the form of the order Mr. Roy submitted that there is no material non-conformance to Section 107 cr. P. C. and in any event the petitioners have not been prejudiced thereby in any way. As to the fourth and last submission of Mr. Hazra, Mr. Roy's reply is that it appears that the use of the expression "good behaviour" is apparently a mistake and the entire order is to be read for ascertaining the correct position,. bringing the proceedings within the purview of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. As to the fourth and last submission of Mr. Hazra, Mr. Roy's reply is that it appears that the use of the expression "good behaviour" is apparently a mistake and the entire order is to be read for ascertaining the correct position,. bringing the proceedings within the purview of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. HAVING heard the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on going through the materials on record, I hold that there is a considerable force behind the submissions of Mr. G. B. Hazra, Advocate. The first contention of Mr. Hazra is quite maintainable as a proposition of law simpliciter. Each case however must depend on its own facts and on going through the gamut of the facts in the present case, I find that the afore said objection taken is not applicable to the same. In this connection Mr. Hazra has referred to several cases laying down the principle that proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. are preventive and not punitive but to avoid repetition of the principle laid down therein, I need not refer to all of those decisions. A reference was made by mr. Hazra to the case reported in (1) 9 calcutta Weekly Notes, 898 as also to the case reported in 1 C. L. R. page 268 in support of his proposition. A more recent decision may also be referred to in this context viz., the case of (2) R. B. Sett Sukhlal Karnant, accused-petitioner v. Emperor, respondent decided by Mr. Justice Guha and Mr. Justice lethbridge reported in AIR 1938 Cal. page 583 wherein it has been held at pages 583 and 584 by Mr. Justice Guha, delivering the judgment of the court, that "the object of the provisions contained in Section 107, Criminal P. C. is prevention and not punishment of offences; it is intended not to punish per sons for anything that they have done in the past, but to prevent them from doing in future something that might occasion a breach of the peace. " I respectfully agree with the said observetions. but the dominant point for consideration is whether there has been any deviation therefrom in the present case by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. " I respectfully agree with the said observetions. but the dominant point for consideration is whether there has been any deviation therefrom in the present case by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. I find that there has been none, and I accordingly hold that there has been no non-conformance by the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate on this count. The first contention of Mr. Hazra therefore fails. 4. THE second contention of Mr. Hazra is also not on a stronger footing. A reference to the police report will bring to light the material fact that it does, not merely refer to some offences committed by the second party-petitioners along with others bringing the case within the ambit of the Indian penal Code but incorporates a clear and categorical reference to facts purporting to establish prima facie that the persons referred to therein are likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or commit any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. If the enquiring magistrate is satisfied these are sufficient grounds for proceeding and thereafter draws up the same under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal procedure, this court sitting in revision should not interfere with the said discretion. The second contention of Mr. Hazra also fails. The third and fourth contention of Mr. Hazra however, stand on a different footing. A reference to the order that was passed on the 21st April, 1968 drawing up proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. against the parties as also the notice that was issued would establish that the same does not conform to the mandatory provisions of Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context the provisions of the said section may be considered : "when a magistrate acting under Section 107, section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, 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 (if any) required". One looks in vain to the order passed in the present proceeding as also to the notice issued with the substance of the information as enjoined under Section 112 having been incorporated and the result is a material non-conformance to a mandatory provision of law. A reference in this context may be made to the case of (3) Shrimati Tulsibala Rakskit, petitioner v. N. N. Ghosal, Opposite Party, deefded by Mr Justice P. B. Mukharji and Mr. Justice Guha and reported in 56 Culcutta Weekly Notes page 193. Mr. Justice P. B. Mukharji, delivering the judgment of the court observed at page 196 that the section provides "that when a Magistrate acting under section 107 Cr. P. C. deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section 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 (if any) required. Judged by that test the notice issued by Mr. S. K. Ghosh, s. D. P., Alipore directing the petitioners to show cause is clearly illegal. " Mr. Roy's contention that the non-conformance alleged in the notice and order has not caused any prejudice and therefore does not vitiate the proceedings as unwarranted and unsustainable. I respectfully agree with the observations made in the above-mentioned case and I hold that the material non-conformance to the said provision has rendered the present proceeding illegal. The third contention of Mr. Hazra accordingly succeeds. The fourth and last contention of Mr. Hazra is quite pertinent and should be upheld. It is passing strange that while drawing up a proceeding under Section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered that security for good behavior is in any way. the basis thereof. A reference to the order drawing up a proceeding under Section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure would clearly reveal that the learned magistrate was directing inter alia as follows : "that one surety of like amount each in addition to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. " The said security for good behaviour can do duty for a proceeding under Section 108 Cr. " The said security for good behaviour can do duty for a proceeding under Section 108 Cr. P. C. but certainly does not bring the case within the ambit of Section 107 of the said Code. Chapter 8 of the code of Criminal Procedure undoubtedly deals with security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, but Section 107 of the Code specifically lays down the provisions relating to security for keeping the peace in cases as provided for there under. This is a non-conformance which is clearly bad in law vitiating the order dated 20. 4. 68 passed under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and the proceedings based thereupon. Mr. Roy has contended with some force that the expression good behaviour as used in the order dated the 21st April, 1968 is a palpable mistake or slip and in view of the language otherwise used in the said order, the same should not be set aside on the ground of purported illegality. Unfortunately however, benefit of doubt can only be given to the defence or the second party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure and not to the prosecution or the first party. The result of the use of the expression good behaviour in a proceeding under section 107 of the Cr. P. C. is clearly an anachronism and it is expedient in the interests of justice that the proceedings based thereupon should not be allowed to proceed any further and be quashed at the earliest stage. 5. BEFORE I part with the case I may observe that the arguments advanced by Mr. Hazra have been interesting and even intriguing. Mr. Hazra at one stage, tried to interpret the provisions of Section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure by introducing concepts which are pari materia enjoined under other laws outside India. As the provisions incorporated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are quite clear and not intricate, I did not allow Mr. Hazra to travel beyond India in support of his submissions made in this behalf. Mr. Hazra, however, appears to have spared no pains and his arguments are redeemed by inspiration. Mr. As the provisions incorporated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are quite clear and not intricate, I did not allow Mr. Hazra to travel beyond India in support of his submissions made in this behalf. Mr. Hazra, however, appears to have spared no pains and his arguments are redeemed by inspiration. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the State submitted at the end of his arguments that in any event the order that was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampurhat, can be sustained on a broad view viz., an overall appraisal of merits. Mr. Roy in this context further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the interests of justice that the order impugned in spite of the non-conformance pointed out, should be upheld. There is certainly no chemistry of justice and it is difficult to agree with the contention advanced by Mr. Roy. Neither the question posed by behtham in the context of judicial reforms that "does justice require less precision than chemistry?" nor the answer given by Lord Justice Coleridge in (4) Rex v. Dickinsom, New Castle bummer Assizes, 1910 that "the law does not demand that you should act upon certainties alone in our lives, in our acts, in our thoughts, we do not deal with certainties; we ought to act upon just and reasonable convictions, founded upon just and reasonable grounds", warrants the proposition that the first-party in a quasi-criminal proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal procedure could have the benefit of this broad approach, based on a preponderance of probabilities. The order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rampurhat, which is otherwise unsupportable for reasons mentioned above, cannot be sustained on a broad spectrum theory. 6. IN the result, I make the Rule absolute; set aside the impugned order dated the 21st April, 1968 passed by shri D. N. Chatterjee, Sub-Divisional magistrate, Rampurhat, District Birbhum in N. G. R. Case No. 367 of 1968 drawing up proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P. C. against both the parties, directing them to show cause by the 4th may, 1968, as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. P. C. against both the parties, directing them to show cause by the 4th may, 1968, as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs. l,000/-each with one surety of like amount each in addition, to be of good behaviour for a period of one year and I hereby quash the relative proceedings based thereupon.