Raghubar Dayal, J.
1. Suraj Datt Dubey was ordered by the Provincial Government on 4th June 1949, under Clause (c) and (f) of Sub-section (1) to Section 3, U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act IV  of 1947, to reside and remain within the limits of Chandausi town and to take no part directly or indirectly in any activities subsersive of law and order. It also required him under Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 500 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate of Allahabad for the due performance and enforcement of the aforesaid restrictions and conditions. It further ordered that in case of failure to furnish the necessary bond and surety within forty-eight hours of the service of the order he be committed to prison or to be detained in prison, if he be already there, until the expiry of the order or until such time as he furnished the required bond and surety in accordance with Section 123A, Criminal P. C. 1898 (amended by the U. P. Criminal P. C. (second Amendment) Act, No. XLVI  of 1948). Suraj Datt Dubey failed to furnish the necessary bond and surety and was, therefore, committed to prison. This is an application on his behalf under Section 491, Criminal P. C.
2. The applicant's contention is that Section 123A Criminal P. C. would not apply to his case, in, view of its being a general provision with respect to the detention of a person for failure to furnish security demanded of him, when a special provision to this effect exists in the main Act No. IV  of 1947. That provision is said to be Sub-section 7 of Section 3, U. P. Act IV  of 1947. It is:
'If any person contravenes any order made under this section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both, and if such person has entered into a bond in pursuance of the provisions of Sub-section (3), his bond shall be forfeited, and any person bound thereby shall pay the penalty thereof, unless he shows cause to the satisfaction of the convicting Court why such penalty should not be paid.'
It is contended that on account of the applicant's failure to furnish the required security bond he could be convicted under Sub-section (7) of Section 3, We do not agree with this contention. We are of opinion that Sub-section (7) to Section 3 provides for penalty in case the orders passed under the various clauses of Section 3, Sub-section (1) of the Act are contravened. Failure to furnish security cannot be said to be a contravention of the order demanding it. It is simply a non-compliance of the order.
3. There is no force in this application. We hold the detention of the applicant to be legal and reject this application.