1. The petitioners were respondents Nos. 7, 26 and 41 to a proceeding before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kavali, started on the Police report under Section 107 Criminal P.C. in M.C. 64 of 1965. It appears there took place more than one incident on 26.11.1965 and a single incident on 29.9.1965 in the village. Allured and several persona were directly involved therein. These incidents were in relation to different persons in the village in different hours. On the reports of the respective persons concerned, the Sub-Inspector of Police moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to start proceedings under Section 107 Criminal P.C. The Sub-Diviaional Magistrate, on the basis of the report, issued on order under Section 112 Criminal P.C. informing the respondents that they had committed wrongful and violent acts involving breach of peace and calling upon them to appear in person and show cause why each one of them should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1,000/- with two sureties for a like Bum for keeping peace for a period of one year. The petitioners contend that Section 107 Criminal P.C., is intended to be preventive and not' punitive and as the present proceedings have been started for completed past acts and do not Suggest that the respondents are likely to cause-breach of peace in future, such proceedings are-unwarranted under Section 107, Criminal P.C. The learned Sessions Judge was under the impression that what the respondents had prayed was that the proceedings as against them should be separated, he further thought that what the said-respondents had in fact complained of was there they were not involved in any incident. He noticed though it is alleged now that the actual reports do not bear it out, that according to the reports there was definite information before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the said respondents (Petitioner herein) were involved in incident No. 2 of 26.11.1965 and respondent No. 41 was involved in incident No. 5 and respondent No. 7 in incident No. 6. On that basis he rejected the petition tied by the petitioners herein.
2. The real controversy raised by the petitioners herein does not appear to be what has been observed by the learned Sessions Judge. What the petitioners request is not that they should be separately tried but that the proceedings should be dropped as against them as such, proceedings were not warranted by Section 107 Criminal P.C.
3. There can be little doubt that Section 107 Criminal P.C., has to be resorted to in anticipation of a breach of the peace with a view to prevent it. Where wrongful acts have been committed for which they should be prosecuted, this section is most inappropriate. Where the information as laid against a person or persona is that he or they have done Borne acts involving breach of peace in the past, that by itself will not be sufficient to justify an order directing them to furnish security for keeping the peace. The Section 107 being preventive and not punitive, it is intended only for preventing apprehended breach of peace. The information that there is strong probability of breach of peace in the immediate future is the foundation for the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and the Magistrate has to be satiated that the breach of the peace or disturbance to likely to take place in the near future. It is this conviction that gives him jurisdiction. The information further should not be vague but definite directly affecting the persons concerned and should disclose all the facts and details. An offence already committed can be punished under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. This provision is therefore intended only for oases for prevention of the apprehended breach of peace. Unless that reasonable apprehension of probability is there or the Magistrate is in possession of information of such likelihood of committing breach of peace, there could be no occasion for requiring the person to famish security. The crucial, words in the section are 'is likely' and not 'was likely,' and so mere acts of violence in the past would justify an action under this section. The apprehension of breach of peace being the main or essential condition, the order must show that there is likelihood of breach of peace in future land not merely that he had committed certain acts in the past which constituted, criminal offences.
4. It may be seen that the proceedings against the present petitioners had started on the basis of the reports given by various persons. In these reports, the names of thecae theca persons do not find place except in the alleged report No. 6 sand even that reports is vague. The order further refers to the past acts and does not say that here is apprehension that the petitioners herein are likely to commit wrongful acts which will probably occasion breach of peace. Report to Section 107 in relation of theist respondents who inappropriate. As already noticed the section being preventive, unless it be to prevent the apprehended breach of peace, proceedings under that section are not justified. I am supported in this view by the decision of the Madras High Court in Maruthapali flounder v. Emperor 1937 Mad W.N. 48 : AIR 1987 Mad 856. The decision in Re, Rangaswami Nayudu AIR 1943 Mad 394 relied on by the learned Public Procreator is not applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the language used in the order paused under Section 112 Criminal P.C.I am o the view that since the proceeding had been started for the acts already committed and not in order to pre. vent any contemplated acts which are likely to cause preach of peace, the proceedings as against there three petitioner cannot be said to be justified. Therefore they must be quashed and they are accordingly quashed.