Judgment :- 1. This revision petition arises from proceedings instituted by the Police against the present petitioners under S.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Executive First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod. 2. The Inspector of Police, Kasaragod, made the report on 27-12-1969. which was countersigned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the basis of that report, the learned Magistrate passed the following order Whereas I am satisfied from the report No. 166/69 dated 27121969 of the Inspector of Police, Kasaragod duly countersigned by the Dy. Superintendent of Police Kasaragod, that the counter-petitioners Nos.1 to 34 being members of the Marxist Communist Party Workers had planned to attack the Adhur Police Station with a view to commit dacoity and murder and to wreak political vengeance and to create lawlessness and a feeling of insecurity and to continue such acts within the local limits of Adhur Police Station, within the jurisdiction of this court. AND WHEREAS it is reported that in prosecution of the common object to commit violence (i) On 23121969 C. Ps. Nos.1 to 31 have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at the residence of C. P.1 at Talapallam in Bandadka Village, with intent to give training to each member of the unlawful assembly, both to execute the planned scheme and for the purpose have collected arms, ammunitions and other lethal weapons, without licence to possess or retain such weapons. (ii) C. P. No.1 to C. P. Nos. 34 have conspired to execute the planned attack and fixed the date for operation as 12 11970, as per the documents seized by the Police from two of the persons arrested on 23 121969 in Adhur Police Station Crime No. 94/69 under See.143,120B I.P.C. and S.3 read with R.5 (i) a and S.35 of the Indian Arms Act 1959. (iii) And whereas it is believed by the police that the counter-petitioners are likely to execute their plan on any date instead of 1211970 as planned earlier, in view of the fact that the police got knowledge about the date fixed by the counter petitioners and if the planned scheme is executed, there is possibility for imminent breach of the peace and tranquillity. AND WHEREAS T am satisfied that the counter petitioners are apt to commit acts of violence and the acts likely to cause to breach of the peace and are intent on continuing to commit such criminal acts. AND WHEREAS T am satisfied that the counter petitioners are apt to commit acts of violence and the acts likely to cause to breach of the peace and are intent on continuing to commit such criminal acts. I hereby direct the counter-petitioners to appear before me on 811970 at 11 A. M. at the court and to show cause why they should not be called upon to execute personal bonds for Rs.2,000/- each with the solvent sureties for a like amount that they will keep the peace for a period one year from this date. AND WHEREAS I am further satisfied that likelihood of the breach of the peace is imminent and cannot be prevented except by detaining the counter-petitioners in custody I hereby issue warrants for the arrest of the counter-petitioners. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaragod hereby directed to execute the warrants and to produce the counter-petitioners before me forthwith. Given under my hand and seal of this Court this 27th day of December 1969". 3. The learned counsel of the revision petitioners contended that in passing the above order, the provisions of S.112 and 114 Cr. PC. have not been strictly complied with. The Magistrate took up the proceedings in this case under S.107 Crl. PC. A Magistrate acting under S.107 Crl. PC. is required to make an order in writing under S.112 Cr. PC. The relevant portion of S.112 is as followsc "When a Magistrate acting under S.107 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and, the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required." 4. S.114 empowers a Magistrate to issue warrant for the arrest of a person if there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person. 5. The question is whether a Magistrate can issue a warrant for arrest without issuing an order under S.112 as contemplated by the Code. S.115 Crl. PC. 5. The question is whether a Magistrate can issue a warrant for arrest without issuing an order under S.112 as contemplated by the Code. S.115 Crl. PC. readsc "Every summons or warrant issued under S.114 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under S.112, and such copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant to the person served with, or arrested under, the same." 6. The above section shows that an order must be passed under S.112 before a Magistrate issues a warrant under S.114. In Jatoi v. Emperor, AIR. 1926 Sind. 288, it was heldc "In an inquiry under S.110, Criminal P.C. a Magistrate derives jurisdiction to issue a warrant against a suspect only after he had passed an order under S.112 of the Code and after he has satisfied himself that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate arrest of the suspect." In Babu Ram v. Rex, AIR. 1949 All. 21, it was heldc "A Magistrate has no power to order arrest with a view to his taking action under S.107, Criminal P.C., unless the case falls under S.107 (3), that is to say, the Magistrate is not authorised to initiate proceedings under that section. Hence where there is an apprehension of a danger of breach of peace and the Magistrate present on the spot is empowered to proceed under S.107. it is irregular for the Magistrate to arrest some persons on the spot and then start proceedings under S.107. The proper course in such case is to formulate then and there an order under S.107 read with S.112 and serve it on the persons concerned and then it would be open for the Magistrate to order their arrest under S.114." It has been held that the failure of the Magistrate to pass an order was not a mere irregularity, but constituted an illegality. That is the view expressed in Zahir Ahmad v. Ganga Prasad, AIR. 1963 Allahabad 4. That is the view expressed in Zahir Ahmad v. Ganga Prasad, AIR. 1963 Allahabad 4. At page 10, the opinion is as follows: "The scheme of the provisions of Chapter VIII in general and that of S.112 and 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that until an order contemplated by S.112 is passed, the information received by a Magistrate remains only an information which has not been checked and can thus provide no foundation for subsequent proceedings in the case. It is only after the Magistrate has passed the order under S.112 that he can proceed further. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of S.112 are mandatory and not merely directory in their nature and its disregard cannot be treated to be a mere irregularity. This conclusion is borne out from the language of S.112 itself which provides that if the Magistrate deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he is to make an order in writing as provided by that section." 7. The above view found support from a decision reported in Emperor v. Rameshwar, ILR. 36 All. 262 (AIR. 1914 All. 466) where Knox J. observed as follows: "In any case, a Magistrate acting under Chapter VIII of the Code has no power to act until after he has recorded an order in writing under S.112. If this case had been properly dealt with, the Magistrate should, under S.112, have made an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it was to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties required. That should then and there have been read over to Rameshwar and others under S.113." The Madras High Court in Krishnaswami Thathachari v. Vanamamalar Bhashiakar, ILR. 30 Madras 282 took a similar view. In that case no order was passed under S.112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Madras High Court observed as follows: "No such order was passed. The omission was a non-compliance with an express provision of the law, and therefore, renders the subsequent proceedings invalid." The Nagpur High Court in Narsayya Lachmayya v. State, AIR. 1953 Nag. 292, took a similar view. The omission was a non-compliance with an express provision of the law, and therefore, renders the subsequent proceedings invalid." The Nagpur High Court in Narsayya Lachmayya v. State, AIR. 1953 Nag. 292, took a similar view. That court expressed itself in the following words: "The failure of the Magistrate to pass an order was not a mere irregularity, but constituted an illegality. There is an express breach of a mandatory provision of law if a warrant is issued without making an order in writing under S.112." It is also held in AIR. 1963 Allahabad 4 at page 11 that the provisions of S.114 Crl. P. C. are mandatory. 8. It has also to be held that the Magistrate cannot pass an order under S.112 combined with an order under sub-section (3) of S.117 Crl. P.C. The circumstance for the compliance of S.117 (3) Crl. P.C. is set forth in a decision reported in Mrs. Courpalay and another v. State of Mysore, 1961 (1) Crl, L. J. 536. The observation at Para.7 of that decision is as follows: "An order to furnish security pending the completion of the inquiry should be made under sub-section (3) of S.117 only after the requirements of sub-section (1) of that section are fulfilled. It is necessary that the reasons for making the order should be recorded in writing. Where an order under S.117 (3) is made by the Magistrate even before the persons to be proceeded against under S.107 appeared before him. nor has he recorded his reasons in writing for making that order, the Magistrate fails to fulfil both the requirements necessary for making an interim order under S.117 (3). " 9. But, the fulfilment of the above conditions set forth under S.117 (3) Crl. P. C. was not called in question in the instant case. It could not be contended that in this particular case, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the enquiry as required by S.117 (1) Crl. P.C. It was only after the enquiry is started under that sub-section that the necessity for taking an interim bond under S.117 (3) comes up for consideration. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate issued a combined order, both in respect of S.112 and 114 Crl. P. C. S.114 Crl. P.C. It was only after the enquiry is started under that sub-section that the necessity for taking an interim bond under S.117 (3) comes up for consideration. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate issued a combined order, both in respect of S.112 and 114 Crl. P. C. S.114 Crl. P. C. reads as follows: "If such person is not present in court, the Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody be is, to bring him before the Court: Provided that whenever it appears to such Magistrate, upon the report of a police officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded by the Magistrate), that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate may at any time issue a warrant for his arrest." The proviso to that section is intended for a case of emergency. The report of the Inspector of Police showed that there was such an emergency in the particular circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Magistrate was bound to consider whether the petitioners were to be arrested or not. When the report was received by him, he had, as a matter of fact, made a separate order that the arrest of the petitioners was absolutely necessary. It was on the basis of that order that he passed a combined order under S.112 read with the proviso to S.114 to arrest the petitioners. Therefore, the provisions of S.112 have been substantially complied with. Similarity, the Magistrate must satisfy that on the basis of the information furnished to him that it was a case of emergency in which he has to act. The entire information set forth in the order indicates that the Magistrate had materials before him to act under S.114 Crl. P. C. 10. There is do provision in the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting a Magistrate from issuing a combined order under S.112 read with the proviso to S.114, in case of an emergency depending, however, on the facts and circumstances of each case. If there is no provision in the Code that the Magistrate should furnish first an order under S.112 Crl. There is do provision in the Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting a Magistrate from issuing a combined order under S.112 read with the proviso to S.114, in case of an emergency depending, however, on the facts and circumstances of each case. If there is no provision in the Code that the Magistrate should furnish first an order under S.112 Crl. P. C. and then an order under the proviso to S.114 Crl. P.C. in respect of the same incident wherein the Magistrate apprehends imminent breach of peace requiring the arrest of a party who is not before the Magistrate at the time of passing the order, there cannot be any legal impediment for the Magistrate passing a combined order provided the provisions of those two sections are otherwise complied with. The materials furnished by the Inspector of Police speak for themselves that there was such an emergency to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioners. I am, therefore, satisfied that in the circumstances of the present case there has not been any non-compliance with the provisions of either S.112 or the proviso to S.114 or S.115 Crl P. C. in initiating proceedings against the petitioners under S.107 Crl. P. C. It follows that the revision petition has no merit. 11. In the result the revision petition is dismissed.