1. In this case Uttam Chand Singh has been ordered to furnish under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. a bond and two sureties to keep the peace for one year or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for that period.
2. The proceedings in this case appear to have been very irregular from the very start. Originally a complaint under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was filed against Uttam Chand Singh, but it was dismissed. Without any fresh complaint, or, any report by the Police, a case under that section was started on the 12th of May 1923 under a robkar purporting to have been based on, some Police report. No such Police report is on the file, nor is there any order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received and other particulars as required by Section 112 of the Cr.P.C. The provisions of that section ought to have been complied with strictly.
3. Another irregularity was that although under Section 117(2) of the Code, the enquiry should as nearly as practicable have been in the manner prescribed for conducting a charge and recording evidence in summons cases, the case was treated as a warrant case.
4. The final order directing that in default of furnishing the required security the accused should undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year was also' altogether illegal. Section 123(5) most clearly provides that imprisonment for failure to give security for keeping the peace shall be simple. This provision was fully ignored, it may have been under an oversight.
5. In view of all these circumstances I set aside the order under Section 107 passed against Uttam Chand Singh and direct that securities, if furnished, should be cancelled, and the accused, if in jail, should be released.