( 47 )
whenever any person is convicted of any offence which involvesa breach of the peace.
Two Indian cases, Arm Samantu v. Emperor 1 and Muttiah Chettyv. Emperor,a under similar sections in the Indian Code, have beencited to show that before an order for security could be made abreach of the peace must have taken place, and that a breach ofthe peace must itself be an ingredient of the offence under whichthe conviction is had.
On the other hand, other Indian cases, viz., Queen v. GendooKhan* and Be Jhapoo* and Baidya Nath Majuiidus v. NibaranChander Chips,1 have been cited, in which an order for security to ■keep the peace was held necessary and lawful when the factswhich constituted the offence of criminal trespass were such as toindicate an intention to commit a breach of the peace. The cases72—P. C. Batnapura 5,131# (unreported) and De Silva v. James 7in thin Court seem also to have been decided on the same lines.
In tiie present case the conviction is for criminal trespass with- intent to annoy, and upon examining the facts it appears that theannoyance consisted of threats to kill the persons employed on thepremises, and not merely attempts to stop the work and refusalto surrender account books.
In these circumstances, I consider that the offence was onecalculated to involve a breach of the peace; and following theprevious decisions of this Court, I hold that the order was properlymade, and that there is no good ground to exercise the revisionalpowers of the Court.
Application refused.
Altois 9,Humani-sing he
*20 W.R. Cr. 87.
* 80 Cat. 98.
6 8. C. Min., Feb. 18,1907.
i 80 Cal. 866.
* 29 Mad. 190.
*7 W.R. Cr. 14.
» 8 8. C. D. 80.