ORDER : (Pranay Verma, J.) 1. By this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16/4/2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.2/2024 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Kannod, District Dewas affirming the order dated 5/4/2024 passed in Criminal Case No.01/2024 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kannod, District Dewas whereby in exercise of power under Section 122 of the Cr.P.C, holding the petitioner to have violated the provisions of Section 117, he has been directed to be detained in prison for a period from 5/4/2024 to 30/10/2024. 2. The Station House Officer, Kannod, District Dewas submitted a report on 1/4/2024 before the Executive Magistrate, Kannod, District Dewas against the petitioner stating that he is a habitual offender and is involved in numerous offences. On 25/8/2023 Istagasa was submitted under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C on the basis of which the Executive Magistrate directed the petitioner to execute a bond for keeping peace for a period of one year by order dated 30/10/2023. In compliance of the said order the petitioner executed a bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- under Section 117 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter the petitioner violated the order passed by the Executive Magistrate and committed another offence under Section 13 of the Gambling Act. In the Istagasa it was stated that power under Section 122 deserves to be invoked and the petitioner deserves to be sent to the jail for the bond period. 3. On the basis of the said report the Executive Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner who appeared and filed his reply which was not found to be satisfactory by the Executive Magistrate consequent upon which he passed the order dated 5/4/2024 as aforesaid which has been affirmed in revision by the revisional Court by the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders whereby the petitioner has been directed to be sent to prison for violation of the conditions of the bond are wholly without jurisdiction. The bond had been executed by the petitioner for good behaviour. For violation of the same the petitioner could not have been sent to jail since Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C was not attracted as the bond was executed for maintaining good behaviour only and not for keeping the peace. At best the amount secured by the petitioner under the bond could have been forfeited. For violation of the same the petitioner could not have been sent to jail since Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C was not attracted as the bond was executed for maintaining good behaviour only and not for keeping the peace. At best the amount secured by the petitioner under the bond could have been forfeited. It is hence submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. 5. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of High Court of Madras in Malar @ Malarkodi V/s. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate - cum Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 31/10/2002 passed in Crl. R.C.No.1791 of 2002 and Vadivel @ Mettai Vadivel V/s. The State dated 24/11/2018 passed in Crl. R.C.No.982 of 2018. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State has submitted that the petitioner had executed a bond for keeping the peace and good behaviour but he had violated the same and has committed another offence under the Gambling Act, in view of which order has rightly been passed for detaining him in prison in which no error can be found in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 8. The relevant provision of the Cr.P.C which are attracted in the present case are as under :- "Section 107 :- "107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. (2) Section 110. (2) Section 110. Security for good behaviour for habitual offenders.- When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who— (a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or (b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or (c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment of disposal of stolen property, or (d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the Commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under section 489A, section 489B, section 489C or section 489D of that Code, or (e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the Commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or (f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of— (i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely :- (a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940); (b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973),] (c) The Employees Provident Funds 75[and Family Pension Fund] Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (d) the prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954); (e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955); (f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955) (g) the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); (h) the Foreigners Act,1946 (31 of 1946); or ] (ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or (g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit. Section 117 :- Order to give security.- If, upon such inquiry, 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; Provided that— (a) no person shall be ordered to give security of a nature different from, or of an amount larger than, or for a period longer than, that specified in the order made under section 111; (b) the amount of every bond shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall not be excessive; (c) when the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made is a minor, the bond shall be executed only by his sureties. Section 122 :- Imprisonment in default of security (1) (a) (b) If any person after having executed a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under section 117, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in-office, to have committed breach of the bond, such Magistrate or successor-in-office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested and detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond and such order shall be without prejudice to any other punishment or forfeiture to which the said person may be liable in accordance with law." (3)………… 9. In Malar @ Malarkodi (Supra) it has been held as under :- "4. Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code speaks about two aspects. They are: Execution of bonds can for keeping the peace, and execution of bonds for maintaining good behaviour. In all these cases, bonds were admittedly executed for maintaining good behaviour, since proceedings were initiated only under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes a distinction between bonds to be executed for keeping the peace and for maintaining good behaviour. In all these cases, bonds were admittedly executed for maintaining good behaviour, since proceedings were initiated only under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code makes a distinction between bonds to be executed for keeping the peace and for maintaining good behaviour. The relevant portion of the provision is this: "If upon inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be..." A careful reading of this provision only indicates that the provision makes a distinction between the bond to be executed for keeping the peace and the bond to be executed for maintaining good behaviour. The schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code also contains two different forms. Form No.12 has to be used by the authorities concerned, if bond has to be executed to keep the peace, whereas Form No.13 is provided for execution of the bond for good behaviour. Therefore, there can be no doubt that a bond can be executed either for keeping the peace or for maintaining good behaviour. But not for both. Even if a person is asked to execute bond for proceedings initiated under Section 107 as well as under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code even then two different bonds have to be executed by him. Therefore, Section 117 makes it clear that the bond for keeping the peace is distinct and different from the bond for maintaining good behaviour. If the proceedings are initiated under Section 107, a bond is ordered to be executed for keeping the peace in Form No.12 and if the proceedings are initiated under Section 110, a bond for maintaining good behaviour has to be executed in Form No.13. 5. Now coming to the provision contained in Section 122 ---------(b), which was invoked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to imprison the petitioners, I find that the said provision speaks only about execution of bond for keeping the peace. 5. Now coming to the provision contained in Section 122 ---------(b), which was invoked by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to imprison the petitioners, I find that the said provision speaks only about execution of bond for keeping the peace. Section 122 (1) (b) starts like this "if any person after having executed a bond without sureties for keeping the peace in pursuance of an order of a Magistrate under Section 117, is proved, to the satisfaction of such Magistrate or his successor-in-office to have committed breach of the bond, such Magistrate or successor-in- office may, after recording the grounds of such proof, order that the person be arrested or detained in prison until the expiry of the period of the bond..." Therefore it is made clear that Section 122 (1)(b) is not attracted when the bond was executed for maintaining good behaviour. Of course, there appears to be no provision, in case of violation of a bond executed for maintaining good behaviour except to forfeit the bonds. It is left to the Parliament or Legislature concerned to fill up the gap, if necessary. It would suffice to say that in so far as the violations committed in breach of the bond executed under Section 117 in the proceedings initiated under Section 110, Section 122 (1)(b) is not at all attracted and therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrates concerned have to be quashed." 10. In the present case the proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner were under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. Upon conducting the enquiry the Magistrate had directed the petitioner to execute a bond in exercise of power under Section 117 of the Cr.P.C. The proceedings against the petitioner were not under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C hence the bond executed by the petitioner could have been and was in fact executed pursuant to the proceedings under Section 110 meaning thereby that the same had been executed only for maintaining good behaviour and not for keeping the peace. In case of violation of the condition of the bond Section 122 (a)(b) of the Cr.P.C could not have been invoked against the petitioner since the same could be invoked only in case where bond had been executed for keeping the peace and not when the same had been executed only for keeping good behaviour. In case of violation of the condition of the bond Section 122 (a)(b) of the Cr.P.C could not have been invoked against the petitioner since the same could be invoked only in case where bond had been executed for keeping the peace and not when the same had been executed only for keeping good behaviour. Since bond had not been executed by the petitioner for keeping the peace but for maintaining good behaviour, the provisions of Section 122(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C were not at all attracted. There is no provision in respect of violation of the bond executed for maintaining good behaviour except to forfeit the bond. 11. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the orders passed by the Courts below are illegal and without jurisdiction. The same cannot be maintained and are hereby set aside. Petitioner be released forthwith. The records be sent back. 12. Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.