EMPEROR Vs. SAYED YACOOB SAYED LALLAMIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants in this case have been convicted of offences under Sections 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and further the applicant No. 1 has been ordered under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish security for keeping the peace.

(2.) The application for revision in regard to the convictions and sentences has not been pressed, and in regard to applicant No. 1 it is contended that the order for security is illegal as the offence which he has committed under Section 504 is not one which involves a breach of the peace.

(3.) In my opinion the phrase "other offences involving a breach of the peace" includes offences which are offences because a breach of the peace has occurred or because a breach of the peace is likely to occur. This is consistent with the cases of Jib Lal Gir v. Jogmohan Gir (1899) 26 Cal. 576; Baidya Nath Majumdar v. Nibaran Chunder Gope (1902) 30 Cal. 93; Kannookaran Kunhamad v. Emperor (1902) 26 Mad. 469; Raj Narain Roy v. Bhagabat Chunder Nandi (1908) 35 Cal. 315 and Abdul Ali Chowdhury v. Emperor (1915) 43 Cal. 671, where it was held that the offence under Section 143, Indian Penal Code, of unlawful assembly does not necessarily involve a breach of the peace. This is so for the common object of the unlawful assembly may not be to commit a breach of the peace. I do not agree with the decisions in Arun Samanta v. Emperor (1902) 30 Cal. 366 and Kannookaran Kunhamad v. Emperor (1902) 26 Mad. 469 that offences which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace are excluded. This is contrary to the decision in Jib Lal Gir v. Jogmohan Gir (1899) 26 Cal. 576 that the Court "should be satisfied that the acts do involve a breach of the peace or an evident intention of committing the same"