Judgment: This petition is by the respondents in M.C. No. 5 of 1971 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nandyal, to set aside the order passed by him under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, requiring each of them to execute a personal bond for Rs. 500 with two sureties for a like sum, to keep the peace for a period of one year under the provisions of section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. This above order was passed on information furnished to the Magistrate by the Inspector of Police, Nandyal, to the effect that there were long standing factions in Alamur village within Panyam Police station limits and that on that account there are strained feelings between two groups one led by Mallu Thimma Reddy and the other led by M. Rama Subba Reddy, that this has taken a serious turn after the Gram Panchayat Elections held in June, 1970 resulting in emergence of two groups and each group resorting to acts of violence involving breach of the peace and tranquillity and on account of these embittered feelings, several overt acts had been committed jointly and severally and there is apprehension of further breach of the peace. He has given as many as 30 instances of acts involving the alleged breach of the peace. It is against this order that the respondents have filed this petition. 3. It is now contended relying upon the decisions in Chinnayya Chettiar v. State of Mysore1, and T. Ramanaiah v. State2, that, since the Magistrate has not stated that there was sufficient ground for directing the respondents to show cause why they should not execute a bond for keeping peace, the entire order is vitiated and must be set aside. In section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the notice was issued, the words used are, ‘when a Magistrate, acting under section 107 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order......‘The words that ‘he should be satisfied on the material placed before him that there are sufficient grounds’, are not used. It is in sections 107 and 108 the words that the Magistrate, “if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding may (in manner hereinafter provided) require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond”, are used. It is in sections 107 and 108 the words that the Magistrate, “if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding may (in manner hereinafter provided) require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond”, are used. These words in section 107 have been introduced by way of an amendment in 1954. It will be seen that sections 109 and no of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not contain these words. However, in section 118 whereunder final orders are passed, the words used are: “If, upon such enquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly”. Therefore, the satisfaction required under section 107 or even under section 112 wherein the words, “deems it necessary” are used, cannot equated to that required under section 118, for, in order to pass a preliminary order the satisfaction required under section 112 is satisfaction even on the material placed before the Magistrate and not after proof in an inquiry. At this stage what is required is to see whether a prima facie case for the issue of a preliminary order has been made out, as in some cases of information received, even such a prima facie case may not have been made out. In the present case, the Magistrate has chosen to say that on credible information placed before him that there is a long standing faction in Alamur village, that there are strained feelings between respondents-petitioners i.e., the group led by Mallu Thimma Reddy and M. Rama Subba Reddy’s group that this has resulted in several acts of violence resulting in breach of the peace and that, therefore, each respondent should execute bonds. When the Magistrate says that a credible information is placed before him, it would mean that there was subjective satisfaction for the issuing of a preliminary order. It is needless to say that he need not use the very same words that are contained in section 107. What he has stated would certainly mean that he is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding and that he deems it necessary that further action should be taken. This objection is, therefore, overruled. 4. It is needless to say that he need not use the very same words that are contained in section 107. What he has stated would certainly mean that he is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding and that he deems it necessary that further action should be taken. This objection is, therefore, overruled. 4. It is next contended relying on the judgment in: Pitamber Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, that the instances cited are not at all connected, that the respondents connected with each of the incidents are different and as each of them cannot answer all the charges, it prejudices them in the trial and therefore, the order is vitiated and has to be set aside. The case relied on relates to proceedings under section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. The scope and the nature of the proceedings under section 107 are distinct and different from those contemplated under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under section no, Criminal Procedure Code, what is required to be shown is that the respondent is a habitual offender in respect of the various categories mentioned therein and an enquiry of that type, does not permit joining of several other persons in the same enquiry unless they are also connected with each of the several offences and as such they cannot be made respondents in the same proceedings and one enquiry cannot be held. That is why in Pitamber Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, Gopal Rao Ekbote, J., as he then was, stated that in such cases a joint trial would not only be not desirable, but would not be quite legal and would prejudice the accused. The object of proceeding under section 107 is to prevent a future breach of the peace and not to deal with a habitual offender. A proceeding under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code is to prevent future breach of the peace and events of the recent past are to be taken as a guide for coming to the conclusion whether any breach of the peace is likely to recur in the near future. Even here, there must be a thread connecting the several instances as distinguished from distinct and disjointed occurrences. Isolated occurrences which have no connection with each other cannot be made the basis for orders under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code. Even here, there must be a thread connecting the several instances as distinguished from distinct and disjointed occurrences. Isolated occurrences which have no connection with each other cannot be made the basis for orders under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, there are several instances, 11 in number. The first instance, of course, cannot be taken into account as it is a case of theft. But the remaining instances relate to breach of peace and range from 30th July, 1971 to 19th September, 1971. It shows that at intermittent intervals there has been a flare-up of factions, fights in the village. The basic cause is the faction and common thread that runs through these occurrences are the strained and embittered feelings between the parties. In a case under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary that every one of the respondents should be involved in every one of the instances. All of them belong to a party and they have been indulging in acts of violence involving breach of the peace. That is enough to bring them together in a case of this type. The only question that has to be considered is whether these instances lead to an inference that there is a likelihood of breach of the peace in the near future. The instances cited had all taken place within a space of three months and their number also indicates that they are not stray and unconnected instances, but that they are the outcome of factions between the parties. This information is enough to warrant passing of an order requiring them to show cause why they should not be asked to execute a bond for their good behaviour. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order. It is for the Magistrate, after enquiry, to find out whether the instances cited have been established or not, so as to enable him to pass orders under section 118, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. It is contended that since the passing of the order there have been no instances involving breach of the peace in the village. This is a matter which the Magistrate will take into account in passing final orders under section 118, Criminal Procedure Code. If there have been no such acts of violence involving breach of the peace since the passing of the order no further action may be called for. This is a matter which the Magistrate will take into account in passing final orders under section 118, Criminal Procedure Code. If there have been no such acts of violence involving breach of the peace since the passing of the order no further action may be called for. 6. There are as many as 78 respondents in this case. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents it may be difficult or inconvenient for respondents to attend the Court of the Magistrate as the proceedings may involve a number of adjournments. It is open to the respondents to apply to the Court to dispense with their personal appearance and permit them to be represented by Counsel as is provided for under section 116, Criminal Procedure Code and be absent on those occasions and it is for the Court to pass appropriate orders on the applications made by the respondents. 7. With these observations this revision is dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Revision dismissed.