Judgment B.N.Jha, J. 1. Original petitioners Nos. 1 to 27 filed this application in revision for quashing an order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Samastipur, passed on the 30th September, 1965 requiring them to execute ad interim bonds under the provisions of Sec.117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for Rs. 1000.00 each with two sureties of the like amount, on the next date without fail. The application, so far as original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 are concerned, was not admitted by this Court on the 8th August, 1967. Hence, the application of petitioners Nos. 7 to 27 is now before me for consideration. 2. It appears that a proceeding was drawn up against original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 and others (not against petitioners Nos. 7 to 27) on the 13th September. 1965. under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and on the 15th September, 1965, original petitioners Nos. 1 to 6 showed cause, but the court was not satisfied with it. On the 28th September, 1965 the police made a report against petitioners Nos. 7 to 27 and prayed that action might be taken under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against them also. Again, on the 29th September the police prayed that as the situation was tense, action under Sec.117(3) of the Code might be taken against petitioners Nos. 7 to 27. directing them to execute ad interim bonds. On the 30th September, 1965 both the reports were placed before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Samastipur. The learned Magistrate, on a consideration of the police report, passed the following order :- - "Accordingly, I, Sub-divisional Magistrate Incharge, Samastipur, therefore, order the newly added members of both the parties to show cause on 14-10-1965 at 10.30 A.M. as to why they will not be ordered to execute bond of Rs. 1000.00 each with the sureties of Rs. 500.00 each to keep peace within the period of one year. For the reasons and circumstances stated above, I am satisfied that the situation cannot be kept under control unless all the members of both the parties are directed to furnish ad interim bonds immediately. Accordingly members of both the parties including those who have been named in the proceedings today, are directed to furnish ad interim bonds of Rs. For the reasons and circumstances stated above, I am satisfied that the situation cannot be kept under control unless all the members of both the parties are directed to furnish ad interim bonds immediately. Accordingly members of both the parties including those who have been named in the proceedings today, are directed to furnish ad interim bonds of Rs. 1000.00 (Rupees one thousand) each with two sureties of like amount on the next date without fail to keep peace during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 117(3) Criminal P. C. as the situation has deteriorated much and there is imminent danger of serious breach of peace between the parties, no further time will be allowed for furnishing ad interim bonds as ordered even to persons brought into the proceeding today as the police has reported for taking action under Sec.117(3) Criminal P. C. against them separately and counter petitions also have been filed by both the parties." Against this order the petitioners moved the Sessions Judge of Darbhanga, but the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga has refused to interfere in the matter. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners does not challenge the first part of the order by which the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate directed a proceeding under Sec.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be drawn up. His main grievance is with regard to the second part of the order which directed the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds under Sec.117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintaining peace. In his submission, so far as the petitioners are concerned, the stage for the execution of ad interim bonds under Sec.117(3) of the Code had not reached then and as such, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was not justified in directing the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds. In my opinion, there is great force in his submission. 4. Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the provisions regarding security for keeping peace and for good behaviour. Sec.106 makes provision for taking security for keeping peace in cases where there have been convictions. In my opinion, there is great force in his submission. 4. Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the provisions regarding security for keeping peace and for good behaviour. Sec.106 makes provision for taking security for keeping peace in cases where there have been convictions. Sections 107 to 119 make provision for execution of bonds for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year, and whenever the Presidency Magistrate, the District Magistrate, the Sub-divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class is informed that any person is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity or to commit any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity, and the Magistrate sees that there is sufficient ground for taking action under the provisions of Sec.107, he may require the person concerned to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond in the manner as provided thereafter. The procedure for issuing a show cause notice is provided under Sections 112 to 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, we are not concerned with Sections 108, 109 and 110 of the Code. If the Magistrate is satisfied that a proceeding should be started, after being satisfied that there is apprehension of the breach of the peace, he would order in writing, stating therein the substance of the information received and the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be enforced and the number and character and class of the sureties, if any, as required under Sec.112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec.113 provides that if the person in respect of whom such order is made is present in court, the order shall be read over to him, or if he so desires, the substance thereof explained to him. If the person is not present in court, summons shall be issued under Sec.114, requiring him to appear on a particular date, and if the person is in custody, a warrant would be issued directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the Court. If the person is not present in court, summons shall be issued under Sec.114, requiring him to appear on a particular date, and if the person is in custody, a warrant would be issued directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the Court. The proviso to Sec.114 makes provision that if there is apprehension of the breach of the peace and that it could not be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate is empowered to issue warrant of his arrest at any time. Sec.115 makes provision that along with the summons or warrant as provided under Sec.114, a copy of the order made under Section 112 should be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant on the person concerned. Sec.117(1) makes provision for enquiry and provides that if the substance of the order passed under Sec.112 is read or explained to the person present in court or when the person appears or is brought before the Magistrate in compliance with or in execution of the summons or warrant issued under Section 114, the Magistrate shall then enquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken and take further evidence if it appears necessary. Subsection (2) of Sec.117 provides that the inquiry under this chapter will be made in accordance with the provisions as provided in cases of trials in summons cases. Sub-section (3) of Sec.117 makes provision for execution of ad interim bond. The relevant provision reads as follows :- - "Pending the completion of the inquiry under Sub-section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity 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....." Sub-section (1) of Sec.117 makes it clear that the person against whom the proceeding is to be enquired into must know about the order passed in the case under the provision of Sec.112 of the Code. Sec.107 provides that he must be asked to show cause, and thereafter if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is nothing to proceed against a particular person or there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace, he would drop the proceeding; but, if he is satisfied that there is an apprehension of a breach of the peace in which the person proceeded against is involved which he denies, the Magistrate would proceed to enquire into the matter. Thereafter, pending the in-quiry, if the Magistrate is of the opinion that for the prevention of the breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity, immediate measures are necessary, he may ask the person proceed-ed against to execute ad interim bond. 5. In the present case, the stage of inquiry had not come. The learned Magistrate by his order dated the 30th September, 1965 drew up a proceeding against the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners were not present in court and the order passed under Sec.112 had not been explained to them. Therefore, the proper procedure in this case should have been to issue summons and show cause notice, along with the order passed under Sec.112 of the Code, to the petitioners to appear in court and show cause, and thereafter, if the Magistrate would have been satisfied that the petitioners had nothing to do in the case and on their account there was no apprehension of the breach of the peace, the proceedings against the petitioners might have been dropped. But, if after perusing the show cause, if any, filed by the petitioners, the Magistrate would not have been so satisfied, enquiry against the petitioners might have been started. Thereafter, if the Magistrate would have been satisfied to take action under Sec.117(3) of the Code against the petitioners, they might have been thereafter directed to execute ad interim bonds. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that he directed the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds by the next date. It was without asking the petitioners to appear in court and giving them an opportunity to show cause. It is not possible, in the circumstances of the case, that the order of the court requiring the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds by the next date would have been carried out. The petitioners are residents of different places. It was without asking the petitioners to appear in court and giving them an opportunity to show cause. It is not possible, in the circumstances of the case, that the order of the court requiring the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds by the next date would have been carried out. The petitioners are residents of different places. In the face of the order itself, the order for executing ad interim bonds by the next date, i.e., the 14th October, 1965 was not proper. 6. For the reasons stated above, the application is allowed, the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 30th September, 1965 directing the petitioners to execute ad interim bonds is set aside and the case is remitted back to him for disposal according to law.