Hegde, J.- This appeal raises a question of law. The respondents were convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum Cantonment in Criminal Case No. 1455 of 1958 on his file, for an offence under section 135(iii) read with section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which shall be hereinafter called the Act, but, they were acquitted of the offence under section 149 read with section 70 of the same Act. The State has come up in appeal against the acquittal of the respondents under section 149 of the Bombay Police Act. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the point under consideration are as follows: The District Magistrate of Belgaum issued an order under section 37 (3) of the Bombay Police Act on 30th October, 1958, prohibiting assembly or procession within the municipal limits of Belgaum, except with the permission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer or the District Superintendent of Police, or the District Magistrate, Belgaum for about 15 days from the date of the order. The order in question was extended with the sanction of the State Government. It is alleged that the respondents and others contravened the said order on the evening of 18th December, 1958, by taking out a procession in a locality known an Ganesh Chouk at Thilakwadi. It is further alleged that, when they were about totake out a Procession P.W. 1 Madhwa, Police Sub-Inspector Belgaum, directed them not to take out the procession but they refused to comply with the direction given by him. According to the complainant the direction in question is an order falling within the scope of section 70 of the Act, the contravention of which is punishable under section 149 of the Act. Is this contention correct? To answer the same, it is necessary to consider the true scope of sections 37, 70, 135 and 149 of the Act. According to the complainant the direction in question is an order falling within the scope of section 70 of the Act, the contravention of which is punishable under section 149 of the Act. Is this contention correct? To answer the same, it is necessary to consider the true scope of sections 37, 70, 135 and 149 of the Act. Section 37 reads as follows: "(1) The Commissioner and the District Magistrate in areas under their respective charges may, whenever and for such time as he shall consider necessary for the preservation of public peace or public safety by a notification publicly promulgated or addressed to individuals prohibit at any town, village or place or in the vicinity of any such town, village or place: (a) the carrying of arms, cudgels, swords, spears, bludgeons, guns, knives, sticks or lathis, or any other article, which is capable of being used for causing physical violence; (b) the carrying of any corrosive substance or of explosives, (c) the carrying, collection and preparation of stones or other missiles or instruments or means of casting or impelling missiles, (d) the exhibition of persons or corpses or figures or effigies thereof, (e) the public utterance of cries, singing of songs, playing of music, (f) delivery of harangues, the use of gestures or mimetic representations, and the preparation, exhibition or dissemination of pictures, symbols, placards or any other object or thing which may in the opinion of such authority offend against decency or morality or undermine the security of or tend to overthrow the State. (2) If any person goes armed with any such article or carries any corrosive substance or explosive or missile in contravention of such prohibition, he shall be liable to be disarmed or the corrosive substance or explosive or missile shall be liable to be seized from him by any Police Officer and the article, corrosive substance, explosive or missile so seized shall be forfeited to the State Government. (3) The authority empowered under sub-section (1) may also by order in writing prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so long as it considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public order: Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than fifteen days without the sanction of the State Government. (3) The authority empowered under sub-section (1) may also by order in writing prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so long as it considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public order: Provided that no such prohibition shall remain in force for more than fifteen days without the sanction of the State Government. (4) The authority empowered under sub-section (1) may also by public notice temporarily reserve for any public purpose any street or public place and prohibit persons from entering the area so reserved, except under such conditions as may be prescribed by such authority."-(Italics are ours). At this stage it may be noticed that while the legislature has used the expression "notification, publicy promulgated or addressed to individuals" in section 37(1), in section 37(3) it speaks of an order in writing. Now coming to section 70 which reads: "Whenever a notification has been duly issued under section 37 or an order has been made under section 38 or 39,itshall be lawful for any Magistrate in a District or Police Officer to require any person acting or about to act contrary thereto to desist or to abstain from so doing, and, in case of refusal or disobedience, to arrest the person offending. Such Magistrate or Police Officer may also seize any object or thing used or about to be used in contravention of such notification, or order, as aforesaid, and the thing seized shall be disposed of according to the order of any District Magistrate having jurisdiction at the place." (Italics are ours). Such Magistrate or Police Officer may also seize any object or thing used or about to be used in contravention of such notification, or order, as aforesaid, and the thing seized shall be disposed of according to the order of any District Magistrate having jurisdiction at the place." (Italics are ours). Section 135 says: "Whoever disobeys an order lawfully made under section 37, 39 or 40 or abets the disobedience thereof, shall, on conviction, be punished............" (iii) if the said order was made under sub-section (3) of section 37, with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees." The only other relevant provision is section 149 which is as follows: "Whoever opposes or fails forthwith to comply with any reasonable direction given by a Magistrate or a Police Officer under section 70 or abets opposition thereto or failure to comply therewith, shall, on a conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year but shall not except for reasons to be recorded in writing be less than four months and shall also be liable to fine." In the instant case, the accused had pleaded guilty to the charge under section 135(iii) read with section 37(3) of the Act. They were convicted, for that offence and each one of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 which is the maximum penalty provided for that offence. Buy they have successfully resisted the charge against them under section 149 read with section 70. The Court below, as mentioned earlier, has opined that the respondents has not contravened section 70 of the Act. In our judgment, section 70 has no application to the facts of the present case. As mentioned earlier, there was only an order under section 37(3) and no notification had been issued under section 37(1). Hence, there was no occasion for giving a direction under section 70. Section 70 empowers the authorities, mentioned therein, to give reasonable directions only when there is a notification under section 37 or an order under section 38 or 39 of the Act. Quite clearly the notification referred to in section 70 refers to the notification mentioned in section 37(1). It may be that some notifications are also orders. But the converse may not be true. The legislature has deliberately used the expression ‘notification’ in section 37(1) and ‘order’ in section 37(3). Quite clearly the notification referred to in section 70 refers to the notification mentioned in section 37(1). It may be that some notifications are also orders. But the converse may not be true. The legislature has deliberately used the expression ‘notification’ in section 37(1) and ‘order’ in section 37(3). These two expressions are found in the same section and, according to canons of construction, generally speaking, they should not be deemed to mean the same thing. Drafting of statutes is an art and precision is an essential part of drafting. It is not proper to proceed on the basis that the legislature is either indifferent or careless in discharging its duties. Further, if the contention of the State is correct, then the respondents are required to be punished for the same offence twice over. This is not in consonance with our jurisprudence. In the language of the American jurists it is double jeopardy. The substance of the allegation against the respondents is that in contravention of lawful orders they had taken out a procession. For this single contravention, according to the State, they must be convicted both under section 135(iii) and under section 149, the first one contravening the order of the District Magistrate and the second for refusing to obey the direction of the Police Sub-Inspector though the latter has merely repeated the order of the former. For accepting that construction which prima facie appears to be unreasonable, the legislative intention must be plain and the language of the statute must admit of no doubt which is certainly not the case here. It may also be noticed that the maximum punishment provided for the contravention of the order under section 37(3) is a fine of Rs. 100 whereas, the maximum punishment provided for contravening the direction given by the Police Officer under section 70 is one year imprisonment and the minimum sentence is four months. Viewed from any angle, the contention of the State cannot be accepted as correct. Before closing the judgment we desire to express our appreciation for the manner in which the learned Magistrate has dealt with this case. He appears to have bestowed a great deal of care and study in dealing with the points under consideration. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Appeal dismissed