1. The above Criminal Revision Cases raise two important legal issues with reference to bond executed under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. and invocation of Sub Clause (1)(b) of Section 122 Cr.P.C. by the Executive Magistrate.

2. The first and foremost contention made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, is that in case of bond executed under Section 110 Cr.P.C., the Executive Magistrate does not have any power to invoke Sub Clause (1) (b) of Section 122 of Cr.P.C.

3. Section 110 Cr.P.C. which deals with the execution of bond for good behaviour from habitual offenders, is extracted as under:

"110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders.-

When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who-

(a) is by habit a robber, house- breaker, thief, or forger, or,

(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or

(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or

(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or under section 489A, section 489B, section 489C or section 489D of that Code, or

(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or

(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of-

(i) any offence under one or more of the following. Acts, namely:-

(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940 );

(b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ] (46 of 1973 );

(c) the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund] Act, 1952 ;-- of 1952 .

(d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954 );

(e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955 );

(f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955 );

(g) the Customs Act, 1962 or (52 of 1962 );

(ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or

(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit."

4. According to the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners, "security for good behaviour" as provided under the above Section is different from "security for keeping peace" as provided under Section 107 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

"107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.

(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any 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 a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

5. In the cases on hand, according to the learned counsels, the petitioners have executed bonds under Section 110 Cr.P.C. for the good behaviour and in view of FIR being registered against them during the per