1. The applicants, Iqbal Ahmad and Ali Ahmad, have been ordered to execute personal bonds with two sureties each to be of good behavior under Section 110, Criminal P. 0., on a finding that they were so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community. They appealed against this order to the Sessions Judge of Azamgarh. Their appeal was also dismissed on 10th September 1947. They have come up in revision to this Court against the appellate order of the learned Sessions Judge.
2. It has been contended on their behalf that all that the facts found against them establish is that- they are bullies and that this does not justify an order under Section 110 (f), Criminal EC.
3. The High Court is not a Court of appeal for cases under Section 110, Criminal P. C, and does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below in such oases, nevertheless, in order to satisfy myself about the validity of the contention put forward by the learned Counsel I have, myself, examined the evidence in this case.
4. It appears from the evidence on the record, which has been believed by the Courts - below, that the applicants are not mere bullies. There is positive evidence to prove that the applicants are in the habit of resorting to violence and of giving beating to anyone residing in their village, who has the audacity not to respect their wishes. Witnesses have come forward to depose that they were beaten when they asked for the price of articles supplied to the applicants. The statements made by these witnesses have been corroborated by the reports made by them to the police. As many as sixteen such reports were produced and exhibited in the case. Three of these reports relate to offences under Section 323, Penal Code. Three other reports relate to offences under Section 352, Penal . Code. In two of the reports the applicants are alleged to have committed offences under Section 426, Penal Code, There is also evidence on the record to prove that the applicants take liquor and come out in a drunken state and assault and threaten the residents of the village. It is stated by Mahadeo Ahir that they threatened to kill him when he refused to do begar for them and that they actually gave him a beating when he reported this threat to the police. Then there is the statement of Ali Qadar Khan to prove that they threatened to set fire to his house. Their behaviour became so intolerable that an application signed by a large number of persons had to be made to the S. P. of the district complaining that the applicants were hazardous to the community. Besides this definite evidence of the conduct of the applicants, a number of witnesses came forward to depose that the applicants were regarded as desperate and dangerous by the residents of the village. That the applicants are desperate, in the sense that they are extremely rash, and act without any regard to the consequences of their action, is obvious from the. evidence on the record. Any person who comes out in a drunken state and readily resorts to beating those who do not act according to his wishes and commits mischief is certainly a person desperate and dangerous to the community.
5. I am of the opinion that upon the evidence on the record the learned Sessions Judge could reasonably come to a finding that the applicants are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicants has relied upon four decisions of this Court in order to show that persons such as the applicants do not come within the purview of Section 110 (f), Criminal P. C. In my opinion none of these oases are of any assistance to the applicants.
7. The first case relied upon by the learned Counsel is The Queen v. Misree Lai and Udda, 4 N. W. P. H. C. Rule 117. In this case two persons, Misree Lal and Udda had been ordered to furnish sureties foci their good behaviour. It was observed:
Petty acts of bullying and extortion, the common characteristics of the gang to which Misree Lai and others belong, ace offences for which punishment is provided by the Penal Code. Bat the prosecutor has failed to record even one instance in which the defendant was punished for these offences.
It would thus appear that there was no evidence available in that case from which a Court could infer that Misree Lall was a desperate and dangerous person. It is no doubt true that in the case Misree Lall had some convictions to his credit for 'simple breach of peace.' It is not clear from the judgment what this 'simple breach of peace' was. At any rate there was nothing to indicate at the time when the. proceedings were taken that Misree Lall was still a person whose remaining at large Could be regarded as hazardous to the community. As regards Udda, it was observed that the evidence against him was still weaker. Every case has got to be decided according to the evidence in that case. The problem which faces a Court in all such cases is whether upon the evidence in a particular case against a particular person it can be said that he is so desperate and dangerous as to render his remaining at large without security hazardous to the community. Much assistance cannot be had from rulings in oases which have got to be decided on their own facts. It may further be pointed out that Misree Lall's case (& N. W. P. H. C. Rule 117) was decided under Section 296 of Act XXV  of 1861. It did not contain a clause like Section 110 (f), Criminal P. C. That section ran as follows:
Whenever it shall appear to such Magistrate or other Officer as aforesaid, from the evidence as to general character adduced before him, that any person is by repute a robber, house-breaker, or thief, or a receiver of stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen, or notoriously bad1 livelihood, it shall be competent to such Magistrate or other officer as aforesaid to require security for the good behaviour of such person for a period not exceeding one year.
8. The next case relied upon by the learned Counsel is Muhammad Asghar Khan v. Emperor A. I.R. 1915 ALL. 852 ; 16 Cr. L. J. 582. It was held in this case that where the evidence produced against a person amounts to no more than this that he is a nuisance to his neighbors, refuses to pay his debts, abuses people who sell goods to him and makes indecent overtures to school be his who pass by his shop it does not justify proceedings against him under Section 110, Criminal P. 0. That a man refused to pay his creditors and abuses them when they call foe their dues can certainly not make him desperate and dangerous. I, however, find it difficult to agree with the view that a person who makes indecent overtures to school be his who pass by his shop cannot be regarded to be desperate and dangerous to the community. It is not necessary to dissent from this view in the present case, because there is no such allegation against the applicants and it is not necessary to decide in this case whether Such a conduct can be brought within the purview of Section 110 (f), Criminal P.C. It is significant to notice that the learned Judge held in that case 'Where the evidence produced against a person amounts to no more than this....' In the present case the evidence produced against the applicants does certainly amount to more than the evidence in Muhammad Asghar Khan's case A.I.R. (2) 1915 all. 959.: 16 Cr. L. j. 682. There is positive evidence in this case that the applicants are in the habit of beating the villagers. In my opinion, therefore, Muhammad Asghar Khan's case A.I.R. (2)1915 ALL. 352: 16Cr. L. J. 582 is distinguishable from the present case.
9. Ishwari Dutt v. Emperor 16 A. L. J. E. 776: A.I.R. (6) 1918 ALL. 318: 19 Cr. L. J. 781 is the next case relied upon by the learned Counsel. All that was proved against the applicant in that case was that he promoted litigation and had considerable influence with patwaris. It was alleged that he habitually committed extortion, but not a single instance of extortion was proved. It was held that such a person could not be described to be desperate and dangerous to the community. It was further held that in order that a man might be held to be a man of desperate and dangerous character within the meaning of Section 110, Criminal P.C., it must be shown that he had such a reckless disregard of the safety of the person and property of his neighbours that his being at large would be detrimental to the community and the fact that a man had considerable influence with patwaris was not sufficient to raise that inference. It is obvious that the facts of Ishwari Dutt's case 16 A. L. J. 776: A.I.R. (5) 1918 ALL. 818: 19 Cr. L. J. 781 are quite different from the facts of the present case. As I have already indicated above the applicants have made themselves dangerous to the community by resorting to violence.
10. The last case relied upon by the learned Counsel is of Bangi Lai v. Emperor A.I.R. (18) 1981 ALL. 487: 88 Cr. L. J. 1070. In this case Bangi Lai, who kept a pan shop, incurred the displeasure of the Chairman of the Municipal be and and some Municipal Commissioners. Proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P. C, were started at their instance. The evidence against Bangi Lai amounted to this, that be had been engaged in some petty assaults with his neighbours and that he was a quarrelsome person and that he had threatened certain members of the Municipal board, who were responsible for the dosing of his shop. It was also alleged that i Lai was in the habit of throwing bricks into the people's house or On to the streets. This allegation about brick throwing was not believed by the learned Judge. There was also evidence in the casa that Bangi Lai had applied for the post of a peon of the Munsif's Court and that an complaint about his character had been made to the District Judge. It is apparent from the judgment of Pullan J. that he thought that the case under Section 110, Criminal P. C, had been started against the applicants because the members of the Municipal board were displeased with Bangi Lai, It was held in this case that the evidence summarized above did not make him desperate and dangerous within the meaning of Section 110, Criminal P. C. In the course o the judgment the following observation occurs:
Even if be throws bricks Into people's houses or on to the streets, though his allegation is far from being proved, 1 am not certain that this makes him a dangerous or desperate character, though it certainly arouses suspicions of his sanity.
It has been very strongly contended before me that if a person, who throws bricks into people's house or on to the streets cannot be regarded as desperate and dangerous' a fortiori the applicants cannot be regarded to be desperate and dangerous. It may be noticed that the learned Judge has not definitely laid down that a person who indulges in brick throwing is not a desperate and dangerous person. All that the learned Judge says is that he is not certain whether such a person can be regarded to be desperate and dangerous. If the learned Judge had definitely laid this down, I would have been constrained to respectfully differ from him. It is difficult to regard an act of reckless brick throwing as anything but dangerous to the community. It may also be an act of insanity. Many acts of insane persons are desperate and dangerous. A desperate and dangerous Act. does not cease to be such if performed by an insane-person.
11. The facts of the present case are very much similar to the facts of Sahdeo Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. (89) 1942 Oudh 356: 48 Cr. L, J. 898. It was held by the Avadh Chief Court in this case that a person who threatens and beats people can certainly be called a desperate and dangerous character. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in this case. Bangi Lai's case 0043/1931 : AIR1931All437 was considered and rightly distinguished in this case. In my opinion the evidence produced in the case fully justifies the-order passed against the applicants.
12. There is no force in this application in revision. It is accordingly rejected. The order of this Court staying the operation of the order demanding Security is vacated.