ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

                                              Venkatasubba Reddy

                                                        Vs.

                                                 State (Andhra)

        Criminal Revision Case No.733 of 1954 and Criminal Revn. Petn. No.685 of 1954

                                              (Chandra Reddy, J.)

                                            24.08.1954. 10.11.1954

                                                     ORDER

Chandra Reddy, J.

1. The petitioners in this case seek to have the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(Executive), Madanapalle, under Section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, revised.

2. On information laid before him by the Police, that the petitioners were likely to commit a
breach of the peace, and disturb the public tranquility, and also do wrongful acts which might
occasion a breach of the peace, or public tranquility, the Magistrate issued an order under Section
112, Criminal Procedure Code. As a part of it, he also directed the petitioners to execute interim
bonds as he considered that immediate measures were necessary for the prevention of the breach
of the peace or public tranquility. It is this order that is under revision.

3. It is urged by Mr. Bhujanga Rao in support of this Revision Case that a Magistrate issuing an
order under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot pass an order under Section 117(3),
Criminal Procedure Code, before the enquiry starts, under sub-section (1) of Section 117,
Criminal Procedure Code. There is substance in this contention. Under Section 112, Criminal
Procedure Code, the Magistrate has to issue notice to the persons concerned setting forth the
substance of information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is
to be enforced and the number, character and class of sureties required. The procedure to be
followed in holding the enquiry is laid down under Section 117, Criminal Procedure Code.
Section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, contemplates a direction for executing interim bonds
pending the completion of the inquiry if the Magistrate considers it necessary to do so in the
interests of peace and order. It looks to me that under this section it is only after the parties
appear in court and the Magistrate proceeds to inquire into the matter he finds the necessity to do
so, he could take action in that behalf, I do not think it is permissible for the Magistrate to call
upon the persons concerned to execute interim bonds even before the inquiry starts, and as a part
of the order under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code. Again it is also necessary under
Section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, that the Magistrate should give reasons in support of
the order directing them to execute interim bonds. In this case, the Magistrate has not adduced
any reasons for his action. So another requirement of the section has also not been complied
with.

4. This view of mine gains support from a judgment of Somasundaram, J., in Criminal Revision
Case No.470 of 1953 (Mad) (A). In- 'Ranganadha Mudaliar v. Emperor1', Burn, J., observed that
he was not prepared to say that a Magistrate cannot in any case pass an order under Section
117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, before the inquiry begins, though in that particular case he
thought that the order sought to be revised was unsupportable. With deference to the learned
Judge, I feel that Section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be invoked before the parties
appeared before the Magistrate as required under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, and the
enquiry starts.

5. It follows that the order calling upon the petitioners to execute interim bonds is unsustainable,
and it is set aside. But this does not preclude the Magistrate from requiring the parties to execute
bonds, if the necessity for such a course is revealed after the inquiry begins.

6. Order set aside.
Petition allowed.

11934 Mad WN 1353