V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THE learned sessions judge of Kutch has made this reference stating that the orders passed by the Taluka Magistrate Khavada should be set aside. The learned Taluka Magistrate Khavada passed an order under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. against five persons and below that order he passed an order under section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge feels that the learned Taluka Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order under sec. 117 (3) Cr. P. C on the same sheet of paper as an order under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. He also feels that the learned Taluka Magistrate has passed an interim order under sec. 117 (3) Cr. P. C. merely requiring sureties and without requiring the execution of a bond. For this reason also the learned Sessions Judge feels that the order of the Taluka Magistrate is improper. The learned Sessions Judge also feels that the learned Taluka Magistrate has not given reasons for passing the order under sec. 117 (3) Cr. P. C. For these three reasons he has made a reference recommending that the order passed by the Taluka Magistrate be set aside. ( 2 ) SEC. 112. Cr. P. C. reads as follows:-WHEN a Magistrate acting under secs. 107 108 109 or 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section he shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received the amount of the bond to be executed the term for which it is to be in force and the number. character and class of sureties (if any) required. ( 3 ) SUB-SECTIONS (1) (2) and (3) of sec. 117 Cr. P. C. read as under:- (1) When an order under sec. 112 has been read or explained under sec. 113 to a person present In Court or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with or in execution of a summons or warrant issued under sec. 114 the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary (2) Such inquiry shall be made as nearly as may be practicable in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducing trials and recording evidence in summons cases. 114 the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary (2) Such inquiry shall be made as nearly as may be practicable in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducing trials and recording evidence in summons cases. (3) Pending the completion of the inquiry under sub-sec. (1) the Magistrate if he considers that immediate measures re necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace of disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety may for reasons to be recorded in writing direct the person in respect of whom the order under sec. 112 has been made to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or in default of exaction until the inquiry is concluded. ( 4 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of sec. 117 does not prescribe any procedure to enable the Magistrate to pass an urgent order pending the completion of the inquiry. The section which prescribes the procedure is sec. 117 (1) and sec. 117 (2) Cri. P. C. ( 5 ) SOMETIMES it may happen that an urgent order is necessary even before the inquiry is completed and a provision for such an urgent order is made in sub-section (3) of sec. 117 Cr. P. C. The words used are pending the completion of the inquiry and not after the inquiry has commenced and pending the completion of the inquiry. In some cases the Taluka Magistrate concerned may find it necessary to pass an urgent order even before the person appears or is brought before him in compliance with an order to under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. The whole object of sub-section (3) of sec. 117 is to provide for emergency. This scope of the section cannot be whittled down by holding that it applies only after the inquiry has started under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 117 Cr. 112 Cr. P. C. The whole object of sub-section (3) of sec. 117 is to provide for emergency. This scope of the section cannot be whittled down by holding that it applies only after the inquiry has started under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 117 Cr. P. C. This was however the view taken in Jagdish Prasad v. The State A. I. R. 1957 Patna 106 where it was observed as under:-IT is only when the person is present in Court or has been brought before the Court that a Magistrate can take into consideration whether circumstances do exist for taking immediate measures and when he is fully satisfied that such circumstances do exist then only he can direct the execution of an ad interim bond but before taking recourses to sec. 117 (3) he has to put his reasons in writing. It is manifestly clear that sec. 112 and sec. 117 provide two different procedures for two different ends and therefore a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order under sec. 117 (3) along with one under sec. 112. An emergeney order under sec. 117 (3) can only be made when the Magistrate has started to enquire into the truth of the information under sec. 117 (1) and in the course of that enquiry he considers that immediate measures are necessary. ( 6 ) WITH great respect to the learned Judges of the Patna High Court it is difficult to construe the words pending the completion of the inquiry as meaning after the inquiry has started and pending the completion. The words merely mean that before the inquiry is completed they would also empower the Magistrate to pass an order even before the inquiry has started. An inquiry which has not started is also an inquiry which is not completed. If we put a restricted meaning on the expression pending the completion of the inquiry the Magistrate would not have powers to pass an urgent order in time of emergency. The expression pending the completion of the inquiry means pending the completion of the inquiry which has been ordered in pursuance of sec. 112 Cr. P. C. It means either pending the completion of the inquiry which has started in pursuance of an order passed under sec. 112 or pending the completion of the inquiry which has been ordered under sec. 112 but which has not been started. 112 Cr. P. C. It means either pending the completion of the inquiry which has started in pursuance of an order passed under sec. 112 or pending the completion of the inquiry which has been ordered under sec. 112 but which has not been started. It is therefore not advisable to place a restricted construction on the phrase pending the completion of the inquiry. I therefore hold that even if the inquiry is not started under sec. 117 (1) Cr. P. C. it is open to a Magistrate to pass an order under section 117 (3) Cr. P. C. provided the other requirements of that sub-sec. are satisfied. ( 7 ) THE learned Sessions Judge is also of the view that the Magistrate has not given reasons as required by sub-sec. (3) of sec. 117 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate has given reasons by observing that for the reasons given in the complaint he has passed an order under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 117 Cr. P. C. There is no doubt whatsoever that an order can be passed under sec. 117 (3) only after an order has been passed under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. In the instant case the learned Magistrate has of course passed an order under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. before passing an order under sec. 117 (3) Cr. P. C. although he has passed both the orders on the same sheet of paper. But he has passed the order under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. first and then he proceeded to pass an order under sec. 117 (3) Cr. P. a. We can therefore treat the Magistrate as having passed one order after another albeit on the same sheet of paper. This date not mean that he passed an order under sec. 117 (3) before passing an order under sec. 112 Cr. P. C. I am also not prepared to treat the order passed by the Taluka Magistrate as an order passed without giving reasons. ( 8 ) THE learned Sessions Judge also seems to think than in the order passed by the learned Taluka Magistrate under sec. 117 (3) Cr. P. C. there is no order requiring the execution of a bond but there is only an order requiring a surety. The order is in gujarati and it practically means that the persons concerned should execute a bond and provide sureties. 117 (3) Cr. P. C. there is no order requiring the execution of a bond but there is only an order requiring a surety. The order is in gujarati and it practically means that the persons concerned should execute a bond and provide sureties. The view of the learned Sessions Judge is therefore not correct. The reference is therefore rejected. Reference rejected. .