JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against the order passed by the S.D.O. Athagarh u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioners. 2. The impugned order was challenged as illegal by contending that it was mechanically passed without proper consideration of the affidavits and other materials on record, and without recording the reasons for passing such an order. 3. A Magistrate can pass an order u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure as soon as he considers from materials before him that apprehension of a breach of peace or the commission of an offence etc. is so imminent that even during the pendency of the proceeding u/s 107 Code of Criminal Procedure interim bonds should be taken from the persons concerned. While passing such an order he should record in writing his separate reasons which prompted him to such a consideration necessitating his taking the extraordinary steps. It is provided as such in order to know that the Magistrate, in passing such an order, was fully alive to the requirements of Sub-section (3) of Section 117 Code of Criminal Procedure and applied his judicial mind fully to the facts of the case in the light of these requirement. Thus an order u/s 117(3) could not be passed in a simple mechanical manner, or for any other purpose ulterior to Section 117(3). In the impugned order before me Magistrate specifically stated that on a perusal of the report the Investigating Officer and the affidavits on record he found that m feeling between the parties was growing, and he satisfied that steps should be taken to enforce preventive measures against the commission of desperate acts during pendency of this enquiry. From this it is evident that Magistrate applied his mind to the facts, circumstances and materials before him, in order to determine for himself emergency existed requiring him to take immediate means during the pendency of the proceeding. Doubtless, there is elaborate discussion of the affidavits and the reports before Magistrate, who in writing out the said order could have 1 little more expressive so as to give a better indication of reasons which prompted him to take steps u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. However, Mr. Doubtless, there is elaborate discussion of the affidavits and the reports before Magistrate, who in writing out the said order could have 1 little more expressive so as to give a better indication of reasons which prompted him to take steps u/s 117(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. However, Mr. Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the Opposite parties, took me through the reports of the Investigating of and some of the affidavits on record from which I am satisfied, that the Magistrate had justifiable reasons to pass such an order Moreover, 'the mere fact that the reasons given in the order self is not very elaborate or definite can be no ground for holding that it was passed without jurisdiction.' Satyanarayan Gantayet v. State 1967 C.L.T. 386. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is substance in the comment made against the impugned order. 4. The impugned order is dated 2-12-1966 and if even after the lapse of such a long time there is still any such apprehension of imminent danger, the Court below may proceed immediately according to law to get interim bonds executed by Petitioners, and/or take other lawful steps for the prevention of the same. With the above observations the revision is dismissed. The L.C.R. be sent back immediately to the Court below for the needful. Final Result : Dismissed