JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - On 17-3-1965 the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Angul, passed an order u/s 112, Code of Criminal Procedure in a proceeding started u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure to the following effect: Seen the P.R. (police report) u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure submitted by the Sub. Inspector, Jarapada Police Station and from the prosecution report I am satisfied that you: L. Achutananda Pradhan of village Mahathir 2. Dibakar Pradhan.... 3. Arjun Behera.... 4. Sunia Pradhan ... all of village Tubey, Police Station Jarapada, District Dhenkanal are creating various troubles with Biswanath Sahu, sub-Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society, Angul, who was then at Tubey to discharge his official duties which may result in an imminent breach of peace. I, therefore, order Achutananda Pradhan and 3 others of 2nd party members to show cause in my Court on dated 19-3-1965 at 10-30 A.M. as to why they should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs. 1000/ - with one surety each for the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year. Further they are directed u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure to execute interim bond for Rs. 1000- with one surety each for the like amount to keep peace till the disposal of this proceedings. As the delinquents were not present in Court, notices of the above order was served on them on 12-3-1965. On 12-3-1965 the order passed is: Delinquents appear and file Vakalatnama and a petition for time to file was (written statement) etc. Time is allowed till 5-4-1965. Delinquents to be on bail of Rs. 300- each with one surety for like amount. They file interim Bonds of Rs. 1000/ - each. Though the orders under Sections 112 and 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure were passed in respect of four persons, only Dibakar Pradhan and Achutananda Pradhan have filed this revision. 2. Mr. Time is allowed till 5-4-1965. Delinquents to be on bail of Rs. 300- each with one surety for like amount. They file interim Bonds of Rs. 1000/ - each. Though the orders under Sections 112 and 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure were passed in respect of four persons, only Dibakar Pradhan and Achutananda Pradhan have filed this revision. 2. Mr. Misra advanced the following contentions: (i) The order dated 17-3-1965 passed u/s 112, Code of Criminal Procedure is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed as the learned Magistrate did not set forth the particulars of the overt acts on the basis of which he deemed it necessary to require the Petitioners to show cause: (ii) The order was not read over and the substance thereof was not explained to the Petitioners when they appeared in Court on 12-3-1965; and (iii) The order of the learned Magistrate calling upon the Petitioners to furnish interim bonds is without jurisdiction as no reasons were recorded in writing that immediate measures were necessary. 3. The first contention involves two questions': (i) Whether the substance of the information was set forth in the order passed u/s 112, Criminal Procedure Code; and (ii) What is the effect of non-compliance with the requirement of the section. The order has been extracted in extenso. It does not show the particulars of the overt acts. A copy of the police report was not sent to the Petitioners wherefrom they could have gathered the overt acts. The expression "substance of the information" means details of the overt acts. The information cannot stop short at mere generalisation of the nature of such acts. A person should be supplied with the substance of the overt acts for his information though it may not be necessary to give all possible details. This view has been consistently adopted by this Court-(See Krupasindhu Panigrahi Vs. Rex, State v. Somnath Mohapatra 19 C.L.T. 58 and Lokanath Das and Ors. v. The State 24 C.L.T. 123). The object of this requirement is that the person proceeded against would clearly understand the matter in respect of which he is to show cause. An order under the section is in the nature of a charge and should contain the substantial particulars upon which information is based. Over this matter there is hardly any conflict of thought. The object of this requirement is that the person proceeded against would clearly understand the matter in respect of which he is to show cause. An order under the section is in the nature of a charge and should contain the substantial particulars upon which information is based. Over this matter there is hardly any conflict of thought. The main question for consideration, however, is the effect of non-compliance with such requirement. The failure to comply with the requirement is a grave and substantial irregularity and this renders it necessary for the appellate and revisional Courts to carefully scrutinise the proceedings. The Commission, however, ipso facto does not vitiate the proceeding without proof of prejudice. The proceeding would not be one without jurisdiction but it can be quashed if prejudice is shown to have occurred. Mr. Misra placed reliance on Krupasindhu Panigrahi Vs. Rex, and 24 C.L.T. 123 in support of his contention that the irregularity renders the proceeding void ab initio. These authorities do not support the extreme contention so advanced. In both these cases the question of prejudice was examined and it was held that the proceedings were vitiated as prejudice had been caused. If the irregularity rendered the proceeding as one without jurisdiction and void ab initio, there would have been occasion to examine the question of prejudice. In 24 C.L.T. 123, Rao, J. referred to Sanatan Baliarsingh and Ors. v. State and Anr. 19 C.L.T. 370 wherein Ray, C.J. critically examined the entire matter and held that the person proceeded against u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure must be supplied with the substance of the overt acts, but the defect in the notice does not vitiate the proceeding. It is a defect curable provided there was no prejudice. With respect, I must say this represents the correct view. The other decisions, if critically examined, do not take a different view. It is, therefore, necessary to examine if in this case prejudice has been caused so as to quash the proceeding. In Raghunath Singh and Others Vs. The State their Lordships held that if an order under the section, served upon a person, does not contain any particulars which he wants to know, he is entitled to complain and to ask to be furnished with such particulars. In Raghunath Singh and Others Vs. The State their Lordships held that if an order under the section, served upon a person, does not contain any particulars which he wants to know, he is entitled to complain and to ask to be furnished with such particulars. If no exception is taken to the notice, and cause is shown and he is eventually bound over, he can scarcely have a legitimate ground for complaining on that score. Their Lordships correctly laid down the law. In this case, the Petitioners appeared through Advocate Sri N. Misra on 19-3-1965 in response to the notice served on them on 18-3-1965 and asked for time to file written statement. After appearance, they were entitled to inspect the records including the police report, which gives the particulars of the overt acts. Even if from the police report, the particulars were not clear, it was open to them to ask the learned Magistrate to supply them full particulars of the indictment. If thereafter the learned Magistrate failed to comply with the provisions of law, the Petitioners would legitimately complain that there was prejudice. That stage has not arrived yet. No complaint has been made and accordingly there has been no prejudice. The proceeding cannot be quashed at this early interlocutory stage. The first contention has no merit and is accordingly rejected. The proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure would continue and the learned Magistrate is to supply full particulars of the charges to the Petitioners, if they so want. 4. The accused contention of Mr. Misra is that on 19-3-1965 the order passed u/s 112, Code of Criminal Procedure should have been read over to the Petitioners, and, if they desired, the substance thereof should have been explained to them. This argument is based u/s 113, Criminal, Procedure Code. This section has no application to a case where the persons proceeded against are not present in Court on the day when the order u/s 112 is passed. In this case, notices were issued to the delinquents. Section 113, Code of Criminal Procedure has no application to the facts of this case. 5. The third contention of Mr. Misra is that the direction, given by the learned Magistrate on 17-3-1965 calling upon the Petitioner to furnish interim bonds u/s 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is in violation of law and should be quashed. In Jagannath Bissoi and Ors. Section 113, Code of Criminal Procedure has no application to the facts of this case. 5. The third contention of Mr. Misra is that the direction, given by the learned Magistrate on 17-3-1965 calling upon the Petitioner to furnish interim bonds u/s 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code, is in violation of law and should be quashed. In Jagannath Bissoi and Ors. v. State 21 C.L.T. 777, this Court has held that it is essential for the Learned Magistrate to consider immediate measures are necessary. He must apply his judicial mind to the facts of each case, record his reasons in writing and then call for interim bond. In this case, the learned Magistrate has, recorded no reasons in writing and has magnetically passed the order on the very day he passed order u/s 112 Criminal Procedure Code. In the circumstances, the direction calling upon the Petitioners to furnish interim bonds is contrary to law and is quashed. 6. In the result, the revision is allowed in part. The order of the learned Magistrate calling for interim bonds is quashed. The proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure would, however, proceed in accordance with law and the directions given above. Records be sent back at once. Revision allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed