JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application in revision which raises two questions. The three applicants, Bhawani Singh, Gana Shankar, and Rustam Singh, have been ordered by a Magistrate of the First Class to furnish security to be of good behaviour. That order has been confirmed by the District Magistrate in appeal. Its propriety is called in question by the first paragraph of the application to this Court. An examination of the record discloses to my mind no valid ground for interference with this order. In so far, the application fails. 2. The other point taken has reference to an attempt made by the three applicants to comply with the order requiring them to furnish security. Each of them tendered his security bond signed by two sureties, and it has been ascertained that the sureties offered were men of sufficient substance, regard being had to the amount of the security required. The Magistrate has, however rejected three sureties, one for each of the three applicants, on the ground that he believes them to be men of lawless character, who could not be trusted to control the proceedings of the applicants, so as to restrain them from the commission of offences during the period covered by the security bond. The discretion given to Magistrate by Section 122 of the Cr PC, is a wide one, and if the facts in this case are as stated by the Magistrate, it cannot be said that he was wrong in treating each of the sureties as an “unfit” person within the meaning of that section. 3. The record however discloses the fact that the Magistrate formed this opinion on the strength merely of a report received by him from a police officer. There is a consensus of authority in this Court, of which I am content to refer to the case of Emperor v. Balwant , [1904] 27 All. 293 : 1 A.L.J. 601 : (1904) A.W.N. 231. and to the cases therein cited, that such a conclusion as has been arrived at by the Magistrate in this case is not warranted by a police report in respect of which there has been no formal inquiry in Court. The persons called upon to furnish security have been given no opportunity of meeting the objection. and to the cases therein cited, that such a conclusion as has been arrived at by the Magistrate in this case is not warranted by a police report in respect of which there has been no formal inquiry in Court. The persons called upon to furnish security have been given no opportunity of meeting the objection. The view taken by this Court appears to be that in recording an opinion that such and such surety is an unfit person, the Magistrate must show that he has exercised a judicial discretion. No attempt has been made to lay down the nature of the inquiry which should be had and, speaking for myself personally, I should desire to restrict the interference by this Court in such a matter within narrow limits. 4. At the same time I am not prepared to dissent from the authorities of this Court which lay down that there must be some sort of independent inquiry by the Magistrate, showing that a judicial discretion has been exercised as to the question of the fitness of the proposed surety. I set aside the order rejecting each of the three sureties in question, and following the precedent of the reported case to which I have already referred, direct the Magistrate to take up the matter again and dispose of this question of the fitness of these three sureties after a satisfactory inquiry in accordance with law. There was another surety, namely the second surety tendered by the applicant, Rustam Singh who was rejected by the Magistrate on the ground that he lived at so great a distance from Rustom Singh's place of residence that the Magistrate felt no confidence in his ability to exercise any control over Rustom Singh's proceeding during the period covered by the security bond. Here, again, I think that the reason given for rejecting the surety may be a valid one; but the Magistrate's procedure in the matter has been somewhat too summary. It is at least conceivable that the surety intended to make arrangements for Rustom Singh to take up his residence near him. At any rate I think that the Magistrate would have exercised a sounder discretion if before definitely rejecting the surety, the had called the latter and made some further inquiry. It is at least conceivable that the surety intended to make arrangements for Rustom Singh to take up his residence near him. At any rate I think that the Magistrate would have exercised a sounder discretion if before definitely rejecting the surety, the had called the latter and made some further inquiry. It is possible that the surety might himself have admitted that he had no real hope of being able to control Rustom Singh's proceedings. As I am sending the case back I think it advisable to set aside also the order rejecting this other surety tendered on behalf of Rustom Singh, and similarly direct proper inquiry to be made with regard to this man also. Let the record be returned.