JUDGMENT : 1. From the papers on the record it would appear that Ganesh and Raja had been arrested by the police on a suspicion of having been concerned in a dacoity. That suspicion was apparently ill founded, and on 8th April the police asked for the detention of these two persons as persons against whom an inquiry ought to be made under Section 110 of the Cr PC. This Court has always pointed out that procedure of this kind is illegal. The Magistrate, upon receiving the report from the police, should at once have declined to pass any such order. Ganesh and Raja were persons who, after investigation made had been found to be persons not proved to have been concerned in any cognizable offence, and against whom there was no reasonable complaint or suspicion of their having been so concerned. They should have been at once released and any further detention of them was a detention not warranted by law. The police, however, while to their credit they informed the Magistrate that this was the state of things, asked that Magistrate to detain Ganesh and Raja in custody and to authorize their detention for a still further time. The learned Magistrate upon this request of the police authorized-detention but did not record his reasons-for so doing. Here he committed a clear breach of the law. If he had, as-the law requires him to do, paused to consider reasons and to place them on record, he would probably have discovered the false position into which he was getting. 2. A Magistrate has no jurisdiction of any kind to act under Section 110 of the Cr PC, until he has such information before him as will suffice for his making an order in writing, setting forth its substance and the further particulars required by S. 112 of the Code. The Magistrate had no such foundation and he made no order such is required under S. 112. All that the Magistrate had before him on 8th April pointed strongly to the inference that Ganesh and Raja had been wrongly suspected of dacoity and that with an object of their further detention proceedings under S. 110, they, resting on no sub-stance at all, were being used against them. Unconsidered action like this tends to bring discredit upon Magistrates. All that the Magistrate had before him on 8th April pointed strongly to the inference that Ganesh and Raja had been wrongly suspected of dacoity and that with an object of their further detention proceedings under S. 110, they, resting on no sub-stance at all, were being used against them. Unconsidered action like this tends to bring discredit upon Magistrates. Ganesh and Raja were detained in custody, the former until 20th April and the latter until 15th April. A “third” person, Chumman, was arrested on 9th April and remained in custody until 18th June. So little foundation had the police for their action at that time that it was not until 22nd April that the notice required by S. 112 was read over to Ganesh, Raja and Chumman. 3. The notice which was read over on the 22nd was an utterly had notice, and I am somewhat surprised that the learned Magistrate should have affixed his signature to it. It did not set out the substance of the information that the Magistrate had received. From its terms it would appear that the Magistrate had no information before him until 22nd April and that this order authorizing detention, as pointed out above, was an order not justified by law. So unprepared even then was the evidence against these persons that it was not until 8th May that any witnesses except a Sub-Inspector were examined as against them. After 8th May the action of the learned Magistrate continues to be as erratic as before. He takes the evidence of three witnesses against Ganesh and the others, and then the evidence of sixteen witnesses who apparently deposed in their favour. On 10th May the Sub-Inspector was again sent for, examined and cross-examined. Counsel for the accused then asked for two days' time in which to produce a copy of a document; then for two days further in order to produce a Law Report. A Sub-Inspector was next asked to produce Law Reports in support of his view. This occupied the Court to 20th May. On 20th May both the Sub-Inspector and counsel for Ganesh and others asked permission to produce further evidence. Twenty-six witnesses were put forward by this Sub-Inspector and twenty-two witnesses were put forward by Ganesh and others, finally, on 18th June, Ganesh, Raja and Chumman were called upon to execute bonds with sureties for periods of one year and under. On 20th May both the Sub-Inspector and counsel for Ganesh and others asked permission to produce further evidence. Twenty-six witnesses were put forward by this Sub-Inspector and twenty-two witnesses were put forward by Ganesh and others, finally, on 18th June, Ganesh, Raja and Chumman were called upon to execute bonds with sureties for periods of one year and under. 4. No wonder that the learned District Magistrate observes that the learned Magistrate's action in this case is open to severe stricture. If the learned Magistrate would only follow the procedure laid down in the Code and not a fancy procedure of his own, he would find that he would decide cases better and at a far less cost of time and trouble to all concerned. 5. Let the record be returned.