ORDER : 1. This is a criminal reference by the Sessions Judge Dhar under S. 438, Criminal P.C. 2. The non-applicant Ranchod lodged a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 2nd Class Badnawar against the petitioners on 26-6-1952. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioners had gone to the complainant's field and had taken forcible possession thereof. It was also alleged that the petitioners are about to commit breach of peace and a prayer was made for taking action against them under S. 107, Criminal P.C. 3. The learned Magistrate took up the matter for consideration and on 7-6-1952 passed a composite order purporting to be under S. 112 and S. 117(3) of the Criminal P.C. The petitioners preferred a revision application against this order and the learned Sessions Judge Dhar has made a reference to the High Court with recommendation that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate be set aside . 4. The parties did not put in any appearance and the Government Advocate was heard. 5. The order of reference shows that the learned Sessions Judge felt that no order could be passed against the petitioners so long as an order under S. 112 was not communicated to them and therefore the composite order was invalid. The view of the learned Judge is supported by a decision in - 'Emperor v. Sidik Ghulam', AIR 1943 Sand 163 (A). Another division Bench of the same Court has in - 'Emperor v. Yusif Jumo', AIR 1943 Sind 175 (B) followed this case and held that the error on the part of the Magistrate in failing to read out the order under S. 112 or to explain its substance vitiates the order under S. 117(3). In the case of - 'Tejslngh v. State', AIR 1954 Madh-B 39 (C), Newaskar, J. has discussed the provisions of S. 117(3), Criminal P.C. and has held that the provisions of S. 117(3) were mandatory and a failure to comply with them vitiated the order. In the present case the order under Ss. 112 and 117(3) were passed at the same time and the order under S. 112 was not communicated to the petitioner before the order under S. 117(3) was passed. The order of the trial Court under S. 117(3) cannot therefore be supported. 6. But there is also another aspect which needs to be examined. 112 and 117(3) were passed at the same time and the order under S. 112 was not communicated to the petitioner before the order under S. 117(3) was passed. The order of the trial Court under S. 117(3) cannot therefore be supported. 6. But there is also another aspect which needs to be examined. An order under S. 117(3) can be passed by the Magistrate only in case of emergency and that also to prevent the breach of peace. The learned Magistrate has passed the order under S. 117(3) in order to enable the complainant to carry on his agricultural operations. Now this is not valid ground for passing an order under S. 117(3). 7. The result is that the reference is accepted, the order of the Magistrate is set aside and the case is sent back for proceeding further according to law. Reference accepted.