Full Judgment
1. The applicants in this case were, by an order passed on the 25th of May 1918, bound over by a first class Magistrate to keep the peace in their own bond for Rs. 100 with two sureties in Rs. 50 each for one year. In default he directed that they should be rigorously imprisoned for one year. About a month later the Magistrate passed another order in which he said he had overlooked the fact that the applicant Raj Kumar Das had been called upon to produce much greater security than the other persons implicated in the case and that he, the Magistrate, had in error only ordered him to provide the same security as the other accused persons. By his subsequent order he, therefore, purported to correct the error he had made and he ordered Raj Kumar Das to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties of Rs. 250 each. He maintained his first order in respect to the other accused persons, but he was careful enough to correct the error regarding rigorous imprisonment in default of furnishing security. In his subsequent order he directed that the imprisonment should be simple. It is quite clear that the second order passed by the Magistrate is completely ultra vires. He had finished with the case on the 20th of May 1918 and it was beyond his powers to alter his order. The second order must, therefore, be set aside. In so far as the first order is concerned, I can see no reason to interfere with it except in respect to that portion which directs the accused persons to be rigorously imprisoned in default of furnishing security. It is clearly contrary to law and I, therefore, modify that order to this extent that if the security demanded be not furnished, the imprisonment to be suffered will be simple imprisonment. It is unnecessary to interfere in any other way with this order