Judgment SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) IN both instant petitions identical question of law arises for consideration, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in both the petitions is that under Sections 107 and 116, Cr. P. C. learned Executive Magistrate without making any enquiry and without recording the statements, issued notices under Section 111, Cr. P. C. against them. ( 3 ) I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the impugned orders. ( 4 ) A cursory look at the impugned orders demonstrates that the learned Executive Magistrate omitted to set forth the substance of the information on which he purported to proceed against the petitioner for prevention of breach of peace. Section 107 read with Section 111, Cr. P. C. provide that such proceedings are to be instituted only in respect of information received by the Magistrate if he is satisfied that there is any danger or likelihood of somebody committing breach of peace and disturbing public tranquility. Section 111, Cr. P. C. refers to an order to be made and reads that 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 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. ( 5 ) IN Madhu Limaye v. Murti, their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus: Since the liberty of the person is involved not because of anything he has done but because of the likelihood of breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility by reason of some act on his part, the provisions must obviously be strictly followed. ( 6 ) THE provisions of Section 111, Cr. P. C. are mandatory and their disregard cannot be treated a mere irregularity. Impugned orders of learned Executive Magistrate. To my mind this cannot be said to be the compliance of the mandate of Section 111, Cr. P. C. As substance of the information received has not been incorporated in the impugned orders, it will be termed as disregard of mandatory provisions contained in Section 111. Cr. Impugned orders of learned Executive Magistrate. To my mind this cannot be said to be the compliance of the mandate of Section 111, Cr. P. C. As substance of the information received has not been incorporated in the impugned orders, it will be termed as disregard of mandatory provisions contained in Section 111. Cr. P. C. As the matter affects the liberty of the petitioners who have not been found guilty of an offence, it is essential that the power should be exercised strictly in accordance with law. ( 7 ) INVOKING the powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is necessary to prevent failure of justice caused be the ommission to incorporate the substance of information in the impugned orders. ( 8 ) RESULTANTLY, the Misc. Petition succeed and are hereby allowed. Orders dated 17-1-1998 and 21-1-1998 respectively passed in cases Suraj Karan v. Bhanwar Lal and Others and Bhane v. Bhanwar Lal and Others under Sections 107/116. Cr. P. C. by the learned Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate, Duddu (Distt. Jaipur) stand set aside. Record of the cases be sent back. It may however be observed that if the persons proceeded against are likely to commit breach of peace, it is open to the learned Assistant Collector and Executive Magistrate to take fresh proceedings against them according to law. Petitions allowed.