S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India an order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate Ahmedabad city calling upon three persons produced before him by the police to furnish bail in the proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the nature of controversy raised for our consideration it is necessary to glance through a few relevant facts. ( 3 ) DURING the recent agitation with respect to reservation of seats in medical colleges one Narendra Chandrashanker Jha along with one Jayesbhai Dhanandebhai Shukla and Bharatbhai Arvindbhai leave was sitting at about 9-30 a. m. on 26-3-1981 at the foot of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi located near the Income-tax cross-roads in the city of Ahmedabad. It was alleged that these three persons were shouting slogans. The Police Sub-Inspector Navrangpura Police Station who is respondent no. 1 in this petition arrested these three persons at about 10 a. m. on that very day in exercise of his power under sec. 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Respondent No. 1 thereafter produced them before the Executive Magistrate for Ahmedabad city who is respondent No. 2 in the present proceedings. Respondent No. 1 submitted before respondent No. 2 that proceedings be commenced against these three persons under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and proper sureties be taken from them. Respondent No. 2 instead of releasing these three persons sent them with respondent No. 1 with a direction to send them to Sabarmati Jail as per his impugned order. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and his advocate who were present at the relevant time were informed that these three persons will be produced next day and thereafter they will be released on bail. On the next day i. e. on 27-3-1981 in the morning the petitioner went to court of the second respondent and at about 11 a. m. he learnt that the said three persons were not to be produced on that day and they were to be produced before the second respondent on 30 The aforesaid order of the second respondent has been challenged in the present petition. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid facts of the case are not in dispute. ( 5 ) THE aforesaid facts of the case are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have filed their affidavits-in-reply. Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit-in-reply has staled that on 26-3-1981 he was attached to a mobile van which was meant for the purpose of attending to emergency work and he was at the relevant time working at the Navrangpura police station. He stated that he had arrested the concerned three persons on the day of occurrence in exercise of his power under sec. 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further stated that thereafter he took these persons to Navrangpura Police Station and a criminal complaint under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by him against all the three persons bearing case No. 20 of 1981 at Navrangpura Police Station. Thereafter these persons were produced with relevant papers before the Executive Magistrate Shri R. R. Shukla at 9 a. m. and as they refused to offer any bail the Executive Magistrate was pleased to direct the first respondent to taken them to jail and therefore they were taken to Sabarmati Central Jail. Respondent No. 2 Executive Magistrate for Ahmedabad City in his affidavit-in-reply states that at 9 p. m. on 26-3-1981 respondent No. 1 had produced the three persons viz. ( 6 ) MR. Jha Mr. Shukla and Mr. Dave at his residence and he had come alongwith a complaint that was made under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That an inquiry was made from those three persons as to whether they were willing to be released on bail but they refused to be released on bail and therefore the only alternative that was left to him was to send them to jail. That all the times he was willing to release them on bail but they refused. On 27-3-1981 Mr. Dave and Mr. Shukla represented by their advocate made a request to release them on bail and therefore they were released on personal bond and surety of Rs. 1 500 6 Mr. B. C. Patel learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has seriously disputed the aforesaid posture adopted by the first and second respondents especially respondent No. 2. Mr. Patel submitted that even though the first respondent might have arrested the concerned three persons in exercise of his powers under sec. 1 500 6 Mr. B. C. Patel learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has seriously disputed the aforesaid posture adopted by the first and second respondents especially respondent No. 2. Mr. Patel submitted that even though the first respondent might have arrested the concerned three persons in exercise of his powers under sec. 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he could not have detained them for a period exceeding 24 hours. While so far as the second respondent the Executive Magistrate was concerned in a complaint before him under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he had no power to ask the concerned persons to furnish bail or otherwise to direct them to be sent to jail. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid submission of Mr. Patel appears to be well founded. It is true that the first respondent in exercise of his power under sec 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arrested the concerned three persons but as provided by sec. 151 (2) of the said Code no person arrested under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 151 could be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention was required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force. Under these circumstances when the concerned three persons were produced before the second respondent who was an Executive Magistrate and before whom proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Cr. Procedure were got initiated no question of second respondent releasing these three persons on bail at that stage could ever arise for consideration. It is necessary to note in this connection that the proceedings under sec. 107 of the said Code are concerning proper bonds to be taken from the concerned persons by why of security for keeping peace. These proceedings are popularly known as chapter proceedings. There is no question of any person being accused of any offence in such proceedings. Definition of the word offence as per sec. (1) of the Code shows that proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code cannot have anything to do with any accusation regarding any offence as such. It is also necessary to note that the Executive Magistrate in exercise of his power under sec. 107 was not acting and could not have acted as a Judicial Magistrate. (1) of the Code shows that proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code cannot have anything to do with any accusation regarding any offence as such. It is also necessary to note that the Executive Magistrate in exercise of his power under sec. 107 was not acting and could not have acted as a Judicial Magistrate. Applicability of sec. 116 (3) of the Code could obviously not arise for consideration as the Executive Magistrate had not passed any order under sec. 111 of the Code. Applicability of sec. 167 was also ruled out before the Executive Magistrate. Similarly applicability of the provisions of secs. 436 or 437 also equally got ruled out of consideration. Under these circumstances the second respondent had obviously no power jurisdiction or authority to direct the first respondent to send the concerned three persons to jail unless they could furnish bail. The impugned order passed by the second respondent therefore obviously was without jurisdiction and null and void and on this limited ground only this petition will have to be allowed. ( 8 ) MR. J. U. Mehta learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents invited our attention to a decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. State of Kerala and Others A. I. R. 1962 Kerala 215 The learned Judges of the Kerala High Court construed the provisions of sec. 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with sec. 167 especially sec. 167 (2) of the Code of 1898 and in that connection observed as under :" It cannot be said that the power under sec. 167 (2) Cr. P. C. cannot apply to cases of persons arrested under sec. 151 of the Cr. P. c. The conditions required to attract the section are that there must be a person arrested and detained in custody and that it must appear to the police officer that he has to conduct an investigation and that the investigation against the arrested Person cannot be completed within twenty-four hours. Whether the arrest was under sec. 151 or under sec. 54 is not relevant for the purpose of remanding the accused under sec. 167". It is obvious that the aforesaid decision cannot be of any real assistance to Mr. Mehta in the present case as applicability of sec. Whether the arrest was under sec. 151 or under sec. 54 is not relevant for the purpose of remanding the accused under sec. 167". It is obvious that the aforesaid decision cannot be of any real assistance to Mr. Mehta in the present case as applicability of sec. 167 of the old Code or any corresponding provisions of the new Code is out of question as in the present case the Executive Magistrate was invited to invoke his power under sec. 107 of the Code and obviously he was not a judicial Magistrate at all. In that view of the matter the ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be of any avail to Mr. Mehta. 9 In the result this Special Criminal Application will have to be allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute. The order passed by the second respondent as mentioned in para 2 of the affidavit-in-reply of the second respondent is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Interim bond executed by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this court dated 29-3-1981 shall stand cancelled. Petition allowed. .