Judgment :- 1. This revision is against an order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Alleppey under S.117 (3) of the Cr. P.C. calling upon the Revision Petitioner to execute an interim bond for Rs. 1000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount. Proceedings under S.107 Cr. PC. were taken against the present Revision Petitioner and an order under S.112 was already passed against the Revision Petitioner. It was after that on 19 21969, the present order was passed by the learned Magistrate on a police report stating that the Revision Petitioner was "continuing those unlawful activities which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace in the locality," and an instance when the Revision Petitioner assaulted one person was also cited in the police report. On the police report the learned Magistrate passed the following order: "I am satisfied from the police report and the arguments of A. P. P. II about the necessity for the execution of the interim bond by the second counter petitioner. I accordingly order under S.117 (3) Cr. P. C. that the second counter petitioner K. Bhargavan will execute an interim bond for Rs. 1,000 (rupees one thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount on or before 26 2 1969". 2. This is not the type of order which the magistrate is expected to pass under S.117 (3). It is clear from the Section itself that the reasons should be recorded by the learned magistrate in writing, but no reasons have been stated. This question has come up for judicial consideration many a time and the consensus of judicial opinion is that the magistrate must give reasons for such an emergent measure being taken. In Rachal Samaho v. Emperor (AIR. (29) 1943 Sind 77) the learned judges observed: "Before a Magistrate passes an order under S.117 (3) he must direct his consideration particularly to the question of emergency and the necessity of immediate measures. Charges falling under S.110 (a), (b) and (c) do not with one exception bring the case under S.117(3). The words 'commission of any offence' in S.117(3) cover cases falling under S.110 (a), (b) and (c), only when the Magistrate considers that emergency orders involving immediate measures are necessary to prevent the commission of any offence. Charges falling under S.110 (a), (b) and (c) do not with one exception bring the case under S.117(3). The words 'commission of any offence' in S.117(3) cover cases falling under S.110 (a), (b) and (c), only when the Magistrate considers that emergency orders involving immediate measures are necessary to prevent the commission of any offence. The Magistrate must give a careful consideration the separate case of an emergency under S.117 (3) and the necessary immediate measures. The Magistrate cannot be said to have done this when merely on a police report, without even calling the police officer in the witness box, without making any further inquiry in the general and vague allegations, such as that the persons complained against were 'dangerous badnaches' and the public was in fear of them, he passes an order under S.117 (3). The mere report by a police officer that the persons complained against were desperate and dangerous characters is not sufficient for action under S.117 (3). The Magistrate should make some further inquiry either from the police officer himself or from some other source before he is satisfied that an emergency justifying immediate measures under S.117 (3) exists.". The Patna High Court in Hurmat v. The State (AIR. 1963 Patna 132) under similar circumstances held as follows: "Magistrate has to consider the prayer for demanding the bond with care and circumspection, give careful consideration to the separate case of emergency as contemplated by S.117 (3) and must be satisfied that immediate measures are necessary. Suspicion of the police alone was not a good reason for demanding an interim bond." The same view has been expressed by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Jallaludin Kunju v. State (AIR. 1952 TC. 262). The learned judges held: "An order for interim security under S.117 (3), Criminal PC. merely stating that "for reasons stated in the police report the counter petitioners shall execute bonds etc." is unsatisfactory and is hardly likely to inspire confidence in the parties or the public. 1952 TC. 262). The learned judges held: "An order for interim security under S.117 (3), Criminal PC. merely stating that "for reasons stated in the police report the counter petitioners shall execute bonds etc." is unsatisfactory and is hardly likely to inspire confidence in the parties or the public. The order must clearly show that the emergent action under S.117 (3) was called for and that the requirements of the section are fulfilled." In the instance before me the order does not show that the learned magistrate applied his judicial mind to the question before him namely, whether an emergency existed so as to resort to the extraordinary remedy of demanding a bond under S.117 (3) of the Code. The learned magistrate has based his order solely on the police report and the arguments of Assistant Public Prosecutor. What the arguments were, we are not in a position to gauge from the order. But the substance of the police report has been given by the learned magistrate as preface to his order. The order does not give any reason whatsoever compelling the learned magistrate to pass an order as contemplated in S.117 (3) of the Code. I would, therefore, set aside the order and remand the case to the learned magistrate for a proper consideration of the question and a proper order being passed. If the interim bond called for by the learned magistrate has been executed by the party, that will stand cancelled. M.C.M Allowed.