(ii) The Magistrate should be satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding.
Section 107 (2) lays down that 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 the local limits of such Magistrate’s 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.
Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code discussed in answer to the preceding question, viz. Section 38 deals with the case of a person convicted of an offence of rioting, affray, assault, criminal force or mischief, criminal intimidation, an offence involving a breach of the peace and abetment of any of the same.
Section 107, on the other hand, deals with the case of a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may occasion the breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. If the breach has already occurred then the Magistrate should try and deal with the offending person under Section 106, Cr.P.C. and not under Section 107.
Section 106 also does not make a distinction like the one provided in Section 107 that both the persons and the place where the breach of the peace is apprehended should be within the limits of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction before any proceedings can be taken under Section 107, Cr.P.C.
Further, an offence under Section 106 is cognizable by a Court of Session or court of a Magistrate of the first class or an appellate or revisional Court; but Section 107 deals with the jurisdiction of an executive Magistrate.