This revision is sought to be filed against the order made by the ex officio First Class Magistrate, Chidambaram, in M.C. No. 2 of 1958, under section 117 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this case security proceedings under section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been taken against 22 persons on a report of the Criminal Inspector of Police, Kurinjipadi. The order in writing made under section 112 sets out the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the sureties required. The learned Magistrate has then proceeded under section 117(3) and has taken interim bonds. The present revision is preferred against that order directing the execution of interim bonds. The grounds on which this revision is preferred are twofold viz., that there was no necessity to take interim bonds ; and secondly, part of the information itemised against the counter-petitioners as constituting the basis for asking them to show cause consists of criminal cases in which they were acquitted.

Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure dealing with prevention of offences and of security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour, is not intended to punish persons for every repetition but to guard society from them by placing them under such substantial but not excessive security as to prevent them from resorting to evil course. This Chapter is preventive and not punitive. Mahabir Gope v. Samrathi Singh1, Sukhlal Karnani v. Emperor2, Baburam v. Emperor 3, Shadilal v. Emperor4, Maruthapali Goundar, In re5, Deo Ballam Singh v. Goraknath Singh6, Inder Singh v. Harbans Singh7.

In other words, section 107 is not intended for the punishment of past offences but for the prevention of acts that may amount or may lead to a breach of the peace hereafter. Rangaswami Nayudu, In re8, Shivaram Parashram, In re9, Banarsi Raut v. Emperor10.

The institution of proceedings under section 107 is not an accusation of an offence the itemised particulars given in section 112 notice is not a catalogue of charges but information which according to the prosecution leads to the inference that the counter-petitioner is a person likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity or do a wrongful act, etc., and against which the counter-petitioner is asked to show cause and therefore if for instance the information proves to be false, the Court has no power to act under section 250, Criminal Procedure Code. Nor does the principle of autre fois acquit or autre fois convict (section 403, Criminal Procedure Code) apply to such proceedings. Hence, where the person proceeded against is imprisoned for failure to give security, his subsequent trial for the acts on which the security proceedings were based is not barred under section 403 of the Code or Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Mathai Manjuram v. The State11. The person proceeded against is the person and not an accused and even before the amendment under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, was competent to give evidence on his behalf; information under the section is not a complaint. The order binding over the person under the security proceedings is not a conviction. Several provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are inapplicable to a person proceeded against under section 107 as distinct from an accused under the Criminal Procedure Code, Kartik Chandra v. Panna Lal12.

Section 107 is applicable notwithstanding that the acts alleged as giving rise to an apprehension of breach of the peace on the part of a person, constitute themselves specific offences for which he may be punished. It is also not illegal for a Magistrate in a proceeding under section 107 to admit evidence on a specific charge or offence which is the subject of a separate current trial, as the scope of the proceedings is entirely different, one being concerned with offences committed in the past and the other being concerned with the