The court emphasized the preventive nature of the section, the need for clear and definite information directly affecting the accused, and the requirement for a likelihood of future wrongful acts to justify action under the section.

1. In these four petitions each of the petitioners was proceeded against under S.10-C (b) of the Laccadives Islands and Minicoy Regulation 1 of 1912 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). Proceedings were started on the report of the Amin of the Minicoy Island that these four petitioners have been indulging in a false propaganda against the Island administration and that action under S.10-C of the Regulation has to be taken against them. S.10-C (b) of the Regulation reads as follows:

"Whenever, after such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Inspecting Officer or the Collector or any of the Collector's Assistants empowered under sub-s. (1) of S.10-A is satisfied that any person in the islands

(b) is 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, or

XX XX X XX

he may require such person to execute a bond "

2. This section corresponds to S.107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. S.107 contemplates a notice under S.112 setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed etc. S. 107 is only preventive and not punitive. The persons proceeded against are not strictly accused and no question of framing charges or finding the accused guilty and sentencing him arises as was mistakenly done in this case. Even so, in the charge framed what the wrongful acts were have not been mentioned. Notice should contain definite particulars and not vague recitals of the words of the section. Here there is only a vague statement that the petitioners are indulging in wrongful acts, that might probably occasion a breach of the peace and disturb the public tranquillity by inciting the inhabitants of the island to defy the constituted authority of the Island Administration. The information of the kind contemplated in the section must be of a clear and definite kind directly affecting the persons against whom processes are issued and it should disclose tangible facts and details so that it may afford notice to such person of what specific accusation he has to meet and to prepare for his evidence. Again there does not appear that there was any information before the Magistrate to show that these petitioners were likely to commit any particular breach of the peace or that they were likely to commit any wrongful acts which were likely to lead to a breach of the peace. There was nothing in the report to show that they were contemplating doing anything in future which would lead to a breach of the peace. The object of the section is to guard against

the apprehended breach of the peace or wrongful act which might probably lead to a breach of the peace. 'Wrongful act' must necessarily mean wrongful according to some law. It is not intended to prevent lawful acts which might result in a breach of the peace because of the wrongful or unlawful acts of others. A wrongful act is an act forbidden or wrongful by law and is not an improper act. It has not been shown under what provision of law the holding of the meeting would be an unlawful act. The crucial words in the section are 'is likely' and not'were likely' and so similar acts or acts of violence in the past by itself do not justify action under the section. Here the specific act against the petitioners is that they arranged and addressed a meeting on 5 21965. In recording evidence in the case too much of inadmissible evidence has been led in and there is considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been greatly prejudiced.

3. The view taken about S.107 as early as in 1876 by the Madras High Court is to be found in the decision in Queen v. Khader Khan (I. L. R.5 Madras 380). There the Magistrate called upon certain persons to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace because complaints had been made against them that they were constantly creating di