JUDGMENT : B. Acharya, J. - This revision is against an order of the Court below directing the Petitioners to furnish interim bond u/s 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Mr. Dey, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the impugned order cannot be maintained as the Magistrate before issuing the said order did not consider the affidavits filed by the Petitioners showing cause against their furnishing the interim bonds. In support of his above contention he cited the decision in Upendranath Kanungo and Others Vs. State at the instance of Hadibandhu Kanungo and Another relevant portion of which is as follows: When the second party members were called upon to show cause against furnishing interim bond, it was open to them to file affidavits challenging the correctness of the police report. It was open to the learned Magistrate, without further inquiry, to have rejected those affidavits after applying his mind thereto. But it was not open to him to ignore them. The final decision taken by him becomes vulnerable on account of non-application of his mind to the relevant materials on record. Though in the matter of taking interim bond the Magistrate is not called upon to conduct evidence of witnesses on oath, and their cross-examination in the usual manner, he is, however, not entitled to exclude from consideration the affidavits filed by a party in support of his cause shown against the furnishing of interim bond. Due to this lacuna the Magistrate?s order is contrary to law and he has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity. The case is to go back to him for consideration if the second party members are to be called upon to furnish interim bonds after taking into consideration the police report and the affidavits filed by the second party members in that regard. Once he takes a view upon consideration of the relevant materials and records the reasoning as required, it is not open to this Court to interfere in revision. 3. The Petitioners have shown cause against the furnishing of interim bonds. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that some affidavits challenging the contents of the police report had been filed by the Petitioners, and the other side also filed some counter affidavits. It is obvious from the impugned order that the Magistrate did not at all bother to consider all the above affidavits on record. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that some affidavits challenging the contents of the police report had been filed by the Petitioners, and the other side also filed some counter affidavits. It is obvious from the impugned order that the Magistrate did not at all bother to consider all the above affidavits on record. The Magistrate, thus, was not justified in passing the impugned order without considering those affidavits. True it is that a Magistrate in proceeding to consider such affidavits at this stage need not enter into an elaborate enquiry regarding matters contained in these affidavits. He should apply his judicial mind to those affidavits along with the other materials on record in order to arrive at a finding whether or not a separate case of emergency, as contemplated by Section 117(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, exists. On such consideration he may either accept or reject them, and then proceed with the matter by indicating his reasons to the above effect in the order itself. As the Magistrate in this case proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering the said affidavits on record, he exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity, and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 4. Mr. Dey also contends that the names of several Petitioners do not find mention in the Station diary entries which formed the hasis for the proceeding. The Magistrate should consider this aspect of the matter in the proper perspective. 5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The Magistrate should proceed with the matter in accordance with the pronouncement and directions given above, and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, within as short time as possible. The revision accordingly is allowed. The lower Court records be sent back immediately. Final Result : Allowed