JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against the order dated 8-10-1968 passed u/s 117(a), Code of Criminal Procedure by the S.D.O., Jagatsingpur in case No. 170 of 1968 calling upon the Petitioners to furnish interim bonds. 2. It was at first urged by Mr. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, that the name of all the Petitioners do not find mention in the Station Diary entries in the Tistol P.S. on which the Police initiated the proceeding u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the impugned order compelling all the Petitioners to execute interim bonds is not justified. Having gone through the Station Diary entries I find that, in one of them the words 'and many others' have been suffixed to some of the names specifically mentioned therein. In some, other names of some other Petitioners have been specifically mentioned, alleging this association with others not named therein, while in the rest specific allegations have been made against the persons named therein. However, mere non-mention of the names of some of the Petitioners within the short compass of the Station Diaries cannot at this stage exonerate such persons so as to exclude them from a proceeding of this nature. Moreover, the Court below took the precaution of examining witnesses in order to satisfy himself that the situation demanded calling upon the Petitioners to execute interim bonds. There is therefore no substance in this contention. 3. It was next contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the date fixed in the notice u/s 112, Code of Criminal Procedure for the first appearance of the Petitioners in Court and to show cause being 31-8-1968, the Magistrate acted illegally in examining some witnesses on two prior dates (26-8-1968 and 29-8-1968) in the absence and on the back of the Petitioners due to which the Petitioners could not have any opportunity to meet and counter-act the evidence on which the order u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure was passed. This contention in my view is fallacious. This contention in my view is fallacious. The provisions of Section 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure are 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 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 u/s 12, has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintain good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded. An order u/s 117(3) is designed to meet emergency, and Magistrates, being saddled with the responsibility of maintaining Jaw and order, are vested with wide discretion. At the same time law enjoins upon them a duty to give careful consideration to the case of emergency, in order that they may themselves be satisfied, for reasons recorded in writing, that immediate measures u/s 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure are necessary for prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence, or for the public safety. Thus a Magistrate for his own satisfaction may record evidence or may take any other materials into consideration before, and in order to take action u/s 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure. There is nothing in law to support the contention that an opportunity to meet and/of counter-act the evidence or the materials on which the Magistrate acts should be afforded at this stage to the persons against whom such an order is sought to be made. In my view affording of such an opportunity is neither feasible nor commendable, as the action contemplated is to meet an emergent situation and to prevent further breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility etc. until the conclusion of the inquiry. 4. In this case the Magistrate was fully alive to the provisions of law, and that is the reason why he took the precaution of examining 3 witnesses in order to satisfy himself whether or not extraordinary steps in calling upon the Petitioners to execute interim bonds were necessary. until the conclusion of the inquiry. 4. In this case the Magistrate was fully alive to the provisions of law, and that is the reason why he took the precaution of examining 3 witnesses in order to satisfy himself whether or not extraordinary steps in calling upon the Petitioners to execute interim bonds were necessary. Thus being fully satisfied on the recorded evidence and other materials on record, and after recording his reasons for the same, he passed the impugned order u/s 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure on 8-10-1968, long after the appearance of the Petitioners in Court on receipt of the Notice u/s 112, Code of Criminal Procedure. I am therefore satisfied that the above contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is fallacious and is of no avail. 5. Having gone through the order sheet, and the exhaustive order passed u/s 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure on 8-10-1968, I am satisfied that the Magistrate acted legally and in a just and proper manner in ordering the Petitioners to execute interim bonds. There is therefore no merit in this revision, and the same is hereby dismissed. The Magistrate will proceed immediately to implement the said order according to law. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately to the Court below. Final Result : Dismissed