ORDER :- On 4-3-1950, the city police of Bikaner filed a complaint before the City Mag, First Class, Bikaner, that Ram Lal had distributed certain pamphlets directed against the Honble Shri Baghuwar Dayal Goyal, Food Minister, and that the said pamphlets were spreading dissatisfaction in the public. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 3-3-1950, at about 1 Oclock, a report was made by one Vasudeo Prasad Vijayvargiya and Mohan Lal Head Constable, C. I. D., that Ram Lal and one Ganga Das had made an effigy of the Honble Shri Raghuwar Dayal Goyal and were taking it round the city bazars with the help of four others and were shouting slogans which were likely to cause a breach of the peace and that they had, therefore, been arrested. The petnr Ram Lal, Seria, Narain, Goglia and Pemla were produced before the Ct and it was prayed that proceedings under S. 107, Cr. P. C. be taken against them. An appln for bail was made on behalf of Ram Lal and his associates. The learned Mag, without making any order as required by S. 112. Criminal P. C., ordered that pending inquiry under sub-s. 1 of S. 117, Cr. P. C. they be released on their execution of bonds in the amount of Rs. 5000/- each that they will maintain peace. It was on 7-3-1950, three days after the above order was made, that an order as required by S. 112, Criminal P. C. was passed by the Mag and the accused were called upon to show cause why each of them should not be required to execute personal bonds of the amount of Rs. 1000/- and to produce a surety each for the like amount for maintaining peace for one year. Thereupon, Ram Lal filed a revn. petn before the Ses, J., Bikaner, challenging the said order of 4-3-1950, passed by the city Mag. Binkaner. The order was attacked on legal grounds and it was urged that the order requiring personal bonds in the amount of Rs. 5000/- before an order under S. 112, Cr. P. C. had been passed was illegal. It was also urged that the said order was passed without any preliminary inquiry and was without jurisdiction. Binkaner. The order was attacked on legal grounds and it was urged that the order requiring personal bonds in the amount of Rs. 5000/- before an order under S. 112, Cr. P. C. had been passed was illegal. It was also urged that the said order was passed without any preliminary inquiry and was without jurisdiction. It was further urged that it was illegal on the part of the Mag to have required interim bond for an amount much larger than the amount he later on fixed in the order under S. 112, Cr. P. C. The learned Ses, J., accepted the contentions on behalf of the petnr and recommended that the order of the Mag be set aside. The learned Asst Govt Advocate supports the reference and urges that he is unable to support the order passed by the Mag. 2. When the complaint for proceedings under S. 107, Cr. P. C. was filed, the accused were also put up before the Mag. If the Mag was satisfied that it was necessary to proceed against the accused under S. 107, Cr. P. C., and to require them to show cause why they should not be bound over to keep the peace, he should have made an order in writing setting forth the substance of the complaint, the amount of the bond to be executed by them, the term for which it was to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. Vide S. 112, Cr. P. C. The Mag without passing the order as stated above passed an order, presumably under S. 117(3), Cr. P. C., calling upon the accused to execute bonds for keeping peace until the conclusion of the inquiry. This was wholly wrong and absolutely unwarranted. He could not have passed such an order without previously passing an order under S. 112, Cr. P. C. The said order of the Mag is set aside and the reference is accepted. Reference accepted.