1. In this case, the petitioner stands convicted by the learned Special First Class Magistrate, Ramanagaram, in C. C. 800/56, for. an offence under Section 56(O) of the Mysore Police Act, for having used indecent language in a public road at Ramanagaram Town, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days. In addition to this, the learned Magistrate directed that the accused should execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 300/-under Section 106 of the Cr. P. C. with two suieties for keeping the peace for a period of two years. This revision petition is admitted only for considering the propriety of the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 106 Cr. P. C.
2. The contention urged on the side or the petitioner is that the order under Section 106 Cr. P. C. cannot be sustained. I think that there is considerable force in this contention. Section 103 Cr. P. C. Inter alia provides that a Court may, at the time of passing sentence, order an accused to execute a bond, with or without sureties, if he is convicted of offences involving breach of the peace and when the Court is of opinion that it is necessary to require the accused to execute such a bond. Prom a reading of the provisions of this section, I am of opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate cannot at all be Justified. The words 'involving a breach of the peace' appearing in Section 106 Cr. P. C. require that 'breach of the peace' should be an ingredient of the offence, and not offences provoking or likely to lead to a breach of the peace; in other words, to Justify an order under Section 106 Cr. P. C. a breach of the peace should be an ingredient of the offence, and that before an order under this section is passed, the Court should give a finding that a breach of the peace had actually occurred.
3. The use of indecent language towards an individual in a public street with which the present petitioner was accused cannot be said to be an offence necessarily involving a breach of the peace, and this point was rightly conceded by the learned Advocate-General. The learned Magistrate also has not given any finding that 6 breach of the peace actually occurred.
Under these circumstances. I think the order of the learned Magistrate under Section 106 of the Cr. P. C. cannot be supported. In this connection, I would also like to refer to a case of the Madras High Court reported in in re, Govindaswamy : AIR1950Mad31 . In that case, the accused was prosecuted under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act and was convicted.
In addition to the conviction and sentence passed for that offence, the learned Magistrate also ordered under Section 106 Cr. P_ C. that the accused should execute a bond for keeping the peace. It was decided in that case that there was no Justification to make such an order and that the same was liable to be set aside.
4. it may also be stated in this connection that Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act is almost similar to Section 56(O) of the Mysore Police Act. In that case, the case against the accused was he abused certain people in filthy and indecent language, as in this case. It is not urged that the Petitioner is a man of bad antecedents and was at any time guilty of a crime Involving a breach of the peace. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that the order under Section 106 Cr, P. C. passed by the learned Magistrate has to be set aside.
5. In the result, the order of the learned Magistrate passed under Section 106 of the Cr. P. C. calling upon the petitioner to execute a bond with two sureties to keep the peace, is set aside and this revision petition is allowed to that extent. If the petitioner is already sent to Jail for not executing the bond, he is directed to be released forthwith, and if the bond is already executed, the Game stands cancelled.
6. Order accordingly.