57 409 secure their punishment by tlie Tribunals, the remedy appeared to lie in the direction of increasing their powers to prevent the commission of the acts in question. The primary duty of the police is, after all,, to prevent the commission of crimes just i\s the primary duty of the law-courts is to punish their authors when brought before them.

Under circumstances such as those above described, where, by reason of tlie failure of the population in general to assist their efforts, the police are reduced to a condition bordering on impotence, it becomes not only justifiable but imperative to strengthen their hands by the adoption of exceptional measures for curtailing the liberty of the criminal classes. In other wn>rds, in certain contingencies, the interests of society, as a whole, render it necessary to restrict within certain limits the freedom of a minority of its members who have shown themselves to be dangerous to the community, nob only because they have been convicted of one or more criminal acts, but also because, by their genei’{\l conduct and criminal mode of life, they have clearly manifested antisocial tendencies of so pronounced a character as to make their continuance at large a jiositive danger to tbeir fellows.

The principle was well expressed by the eminent Italian statesman and late Prime Minister of Italy, Signor Grispi, in introducing on the 23rd February, 1888, in the Italian Chamber of Deputies, the Italian project of law concerning public security. I cannot do better than quote his words :— “When crime follows upon crime, without our being’able to collect sufficient evidence concerning them to bring their authors to justice, either because the latter ingeniously contrive to throw dust in the eyes of the police, or because, by methods of intimidation, they reduce victims and witne.sses to silence; and if we have the firm conviction that certain persons, and no others, are the secret authors of such crimes, then their forcible removal from the scene of their exploits becomes a practical necessity of solf-preservation to which, whether we like it or not, we are forced, in the end, to have recourse.”'-' Under these circumstances, it was decided to have recourse to the principle o( requiring sureties for good behaviour from individuals of the class above described. This principle of requiring sureties for good behaviour from persons whose present mode of life, or past history, justifies suspicion, is one with which English lawyers are very iamiliar. It has large application in our own criminal law.t Thence it has passed into the criminal law of British India.

In the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (Act No. Y, of 1898), there are several provisions in this sense. Certain magistrates may require suspected persons to execute a bond with sureties for keeping the peace in the future.

This power is given to the magistrate when he receives information— {a.) That any person is taking precautions to conceal his presence within the local limit.s of his jurisdiction, and that there is reason to believe that such person is taking such precautions with a view of committing any offence ; or (/).) That there is, within such limits, a person who has no ostensible means of subsistence, or who cannot give a satisfactory account of himself.

The period for which the bond is executed may not exceed one year (section 109). The same power is given to the magistrate when he receives information that any person Avithin the local limits of his jurisdiction— {a.) Is by liabit a robber, hou.se-breaker or thief; or (/).) Is by habit a receiver of stolon property knowing the sumo to have been sluii'ii ; or (c.) Habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property ; or (d.) Habitually commits mischief, extortion or cheating, or counterfeiting coin, currency notes or stamps, or attempts so to do; or ((’.) Habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences involving a breach of the peace ; or if.) Is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community.

The period for which the bond is executed may not, in this case, exceed three years' (section 110).

The. fact that a person is an habitual offender may be proved by evidence of general ivpute or otherwise (section 117 (3.)).

* See “II digesto Italiaao,” Luigi Lucchini, Turin, 1890-1902, vol. ix, Parte terza—Doniicilio Coalto-p. 719.

t notably, 42 & 43 Yict,, cap. 49, sec. 25 House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online. Copyright (c) 2006 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.