ORDER 1. The facts of the case are very simple. A report was made on 14-7-61 by Harijan Krishi Sahakari Samiti under S. 107 Cri. Pro. Code alleging high-handedness of the applicant the details of which we are not at present concerned. After making some inquiry the police on 17-8-61 filed a challan for proceeding, under S. 107 Cri. Pro. Code before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate the Magistrate ordered service of notice under S. 112 on the applicant, took statements of two witnesses and passed an order on 17-8-61 asking the applicant to furnish interim security. 2. The question before me is whether such an order demanding interim security could be passed before the non-applicant could appear. The Addl. Sessions Judge who made this references, thinks that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction unless the provisions of S.117 (1) of Cri. Pro. Code are complied with, the enquiry does not commence and no order can be passed demanding interim security. The District Judge therefore made this reference for quashing the order of the Magistrate. 3. I think the plain reading of sections would simplify the matter. Under S. 112 the Magistrate acting under S. 107 may if he deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, be 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 of sureties required, But S. 117 (1) indicates that if the order under S. 112 has been read or explained, 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. S. 117 (3) empowers the Court that while inquiry into the truth of information is going on to direct the person in respect of whom order under S. 112 has been made to execution a bond. 4. Therefore what S. 112 authorises the Court is to issue a notice to show cause. He cannot pass any order asking the non-applicant to execute a bond, whereas S. 117 (3) gives the Court such jurisdiction. But before S. 117 (3) can be applied the non applicant must appeal before the Court as is required under S. 117. 4. Therefore what S. 112 authorises the Court is to issue a notice to show cause. He cannot pass any order asking the non-applicant to execute a bond, whereas S. 117 (3) gives the Court such jurisdiction. But before S. 117 (3) can be applied the non applicant must appeal before the Court as is required under S. 117. The Magistrate therefore has no jurisdiction to pass the final order asking the non-applicant to furnish a security. 5. The learned Government Advocate cited a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1943 Sind 1/2 Emperor Vs. Gulam Mohd. which according to him is against the above proposition I am afraid this ruling did not decide the point in question at all what we are concerned in this case is whether before any person can be served, by an order under S. 1.12, interim security can be demanded. It is only when the person is present in the Court or brought before the Court that the 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 an ad-interim bond. 6. The words of S. 112 which I have already referred to above are "The Magistrate acting under S. 107, may if he deems it necessary to require any person to show cause." Now first of all if he deems it necessary then the order affecting the non-applicant can only be passed in his presence. The Cri. Pro. Code does not enable any Magistrate to pass an adverse order unless he is specifically empowered by the Act. S. 112, does not speak of any such power. It is only under S. 117 (3) that the Magistrate can take action if he considers, pending the completion of the enquiry under sub-section 1. Now the inquiry under sub-section (1) can be pending only when an order under S. 112 is read or explained under S. 113 to a person present in the Court or when he appears or is brought before the Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant issued under S. 114 and not before it. The order of the Magistrate is therefore wrong and deserves to be quashed. 7. The result is the reference is accepted. The order of the Magistrate is therefore wrong and deserves to be quashed. 7. The result is the reference is accepted. The order of the Magistrate is quashed and he is directed to dispose of the case according to law in the light of the observations made above.