Mehta, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar, recommending that the proceedings under section 107 Cr. P. C. instituted by the City Magistrate, Sikar, against Alladin and Fateh Khan be quashed.
(2.) THE facts of the case are these:-On the night of 5th May, 1950 some five or seven Hindus made a report before the Deputy Superintendent Police, Sikar, that as Alladin Patwari wanted to marry a Hindu widow after converting her to Islam a crowd of Hindus and Sindhis bad collected and a breach of the peace was apprehended. Upon this report the D. S. P. and A. S. I. Hari Shanker with two constables proceeded to the spot and found that hundreds of Hindus had collected in several groups and were saying that Alladin had concealed the woman and was not disclosing any information as to her whereabouts. THEy also came to know that Alladin had at first kept the woman with Fateh Khan who subsequently refused to keep her and returned her. THEy also saw that some Mohammedans had also collected armed with lathies. THEy found the woman in the house of one Mali. She told them that she had come from her village in connection with a case relat-ing to land which was pending in the local court and that she fell into the clutches of Alladin in Sikar. THE D. S. P. submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police with the request that proceedings might be instituted against Alladin under Security Ordinance and against Fateh Khan under section 107 Cr. P. C. THE Superintendent of Police, Sikar, forwarded this report to the City Magistrate Sikar with his remarks that both the persons be bound down to keep the peace by executing a bond for Rs. 10000/- with atleast 10 sureties. THE City Magistrate on 8th May 1950 after examining Hari Shanker A. S. I. Kotwali issued a notice to Alladin to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 5000/- with two sureties of Rs. 2500/- each and also Fateh Khan with this difference that the amount of bond in his case was Rs. 3000/1 with two sureties for Rs. 1500/- each. On the same day on a report of the Prosecuting Inspector the Magistrate ordered both Alladin and Fateh Khan to execute personal bonds for Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 3000/-respectively with two sureties for half the amount each for keeping the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry and also for attending his court whenever so required. Alladin and Fateh Khan moved the Sessions Judge, Sikar, in revision against this order. Hence this reference. The recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge is based on the ground that there was no reason for starting proceedings against these two persons under section 107 Cr. P. C. and that if those persons had committed any crime they could have been prosecuted under the law. In the opinion of the Sessions Judge if any proceedings under section 107 Cr. P. C. had to be initiated they ought to have been against those Sindhis who were armed with lathis and were asking Alladin about the whereabouts of the woman. The Sessions Judge was of further opinion that it was not proper for the City Magistrate not to mention the substance of the information in the notice which was given to Alladin and Fateh Khan and that it was also not desirable that one bond should be taken both for keeping the peace and attending, the court without specifying the amount separately which was liable to be forfeited in case of default and that the amount of the bond was also excessive. The Sessions Judge has recommended that the proceedings against Alladin and Fateh Khan under section 107 Cr. P. C. should be quashed. It may be observed that a Magistrate can start proceedings under section 107 Cr. P. C. when he is satis-tied on information that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity. Thus there are two distinct sets of circumstances in which a Magistrate may take action under section 107 Cr. P. C. First when a person is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity by a direct act, e. g. by committing assault and secondly when he may be the indirect cause of the breach of the peace or the disturbance of the public tranquillity by doing a wrongful act. In this case there is no allegation against Alladin and Fateh Khan that they were likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity by a direct act. On the other hand it is mentioned in the report of A. S. I. and the statement of Hari Shanker that Sindhi Hindus who were armed with lathis were asking Alladin and other Muslims who had also lathis with them as to where they had concealed the woman. Both these persons were sought to be bound down on the ground that by their wrongful act a breach of the peace or the disturbance of the public tranquillity was likely to take place. The allegation against Alladin was that he had abducted a Hindu Rajput widow of Sikar but the widow herself has, as mentioned in the report of D. S. P. stated that she had come to Sikar of her own accord in connection with a civil litigation. The woman was found at the house of Mali. She had gone to a temple of her free will but as she could not find any shelter there she had gone to the Mali's house. All these facts are mentioned in the D. S. P. 's report. The woman has not stated that she was going to be forcibly converted to Islam or was being remarried against her will by Alladin or Fateh Khan. She was no longer in the custody or power of Alladin. It cannot be said, therefore, that Alladin was going to do a wrongful act which would have probably occasioned a breach of the peace or disturbed the public tranquillity. An act to be wrongful within the meaning of section 107 Cr. P. C. must be an act which is forbidden or declared to be penal or wrongful by the criminal law, An act however improper it may be cannot be regarded a wrongful for purposes of section 107 Cr. P. C. unless it is wrongful according to some law (vide 21 Cr. L. J. 453 and A. I. R. 1939 Sind 167) Similarly there is no allegation of doing any wrongful act against Fateh Khan. The proceedings under section 107 Cr. P. C. against Alladin and Fateh Khan appear, therefore, to have been taken on improper grounds. The recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be accepted. The observation of the Sessions Judge that the City Magistrate ought to have mentioned the substance of information upon which he had taken action under section 107 Cr. P. C. in the notice which was issued by him to Alladin and Fateh Khan under the said section, is also correct. The notice under section no Cr. P. C. must contain some thing more than a mere reproduction of clause (1) of section 107 Cr. P. C. There should be sufficient indication as to in what way and with reference to what matter a person was likely to commit a breach of the peace. Without such a specification the proceeding would be regarded as vague and liable to be set aside if prejudice is caused to the person proceeded against by such omission. This view finds support in 47 Cr. L. J. and 642 A. I. R. 1939 Sind 261. In the present case also the notice issued to Alladin and Fateh Khan was too vague and it is not clear in what way they were likely to cause a breach of the peace. As has been said above the proceedings against both of them have been instituted on improper grounds and they would be unnecessarily harassed if those proceedings are allowed to continue further. It may also be noted that an order releasing a person against whom action under section 107 Cr. P. C. has been taken on bail with or without sureties to ensure his attendance should not be confused with one of interim security under section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. The bonds for keeping the peace until the conclusion of inquiry under section 107 Cr. P. C. should not be mixed with those for ensuring attendance. Amount of the bond and security also be fixed after taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the security should not be disproportionate to the ability of the person proceeded against to furnish it with reference to his means. As has been held in 26 Cr. L. J. 179 the provisions of Chapter VII are not intended to punish but to prevent crime and it is not permissible to limit the security to such description that it is perfectly impossible for the accused to furnish it thus rendering it certain that he would be committed to Jail. In this case the amount of security of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5000/- which was demanded from Alladin and Fateh Khan respectively was obviously excessive and the amounts of interim bail and security were also rather heavy. In the result the reference is accepted and the proceedings under section 107 Cr. P. C. against Alladin and Fateh Khan are quashed. It may also be remarked that if both these persons had committed any act which was punishable under the law appropriate proceedings could be started against them. Similarly if in future they are likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity fresh proceedings can be taken against them according to law. . ;