JUDGMENT
S.P. Singh, J.
1. These two applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Two proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called ‘the Code’) were started. In both these proceedings the State is the first party. Petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3365 of 1976 are second party in one and the petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4011 of 1976 are second party in another. It is said that there is likelihood of breach of the peace on account of dispute between the petitioners of these two cases in connection with cutting of Government Sisam tree and it is necessary that proceeding under Section 107 of the Code be started against them.
3. Learned Counsel have urged firstly that the allegations against the petitioners are vague. I am not inclined to agree with this contention. The allegations are such from which they can gather what is the case against them.
4. It has been next submitted that the petitioners of both the cases were asked to keep peace for six months only and that the period of six months has already expired in one case and going to expire soon, in the other. Since the petitioners came to this Court and did not show cause against execution of a bond when they were asked to do so, they cannot take advantage of that and allowed to urge that the proceedings b? dropped since the period of six months has expired or going to expire.
5. Lastly, it has been submitted that the order so far the petitioners are called upon to give two sureties also for the bond, is bad in law. In this connection, it has been submitted that the words “with or without sureties” were there in Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, but they have been deleted from the said Section in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the year 1973, while these words were also therein Sections of 108 and 109 and they have been retained in those two Sections. There appears to be substance in this contention. When the words have been retained in two of the Sections and they have been deleted from Section 107 of the Code, the intention obviously is that for exec a ting bonds under Section 107 of the Code, the Magistrate cannot ask for sureties.
6. In the result, the applications are allowed in part and only that part of the order by which the petitioners have been called upon to give sureties also, is set aside. The other part of the order will remain.