Judgment :- 1. The two revision petitioners before us executed a surety bond dated 14101971 in M. C. No. 5 of 1971 of the Additional I-Class Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, undertaking to produce one Joy, son of Mathai, on the date of the hearing of that case on 15 111971 and on subsequent dates to which the case was to be posted for hearing and in case of default of his production they further undertook under the bond to forfeit each of them a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the State of Kerala. The petitioners failed to comply with the terms of the bond. So by an order dated 14 21972 the Additional First-Class Magistrate forfeited the amount of Rs.1000/- after notice to the petitioners under S.514 Cr. P.C. but their liability was reduced to Rs. 300/- each with direction to pay the said sum as penalty failing which the Court also ordered that their movable properties shall be attached to realise the amount. It is against that order that the revision petition is filed. 2. Some more facts are necessary to be stated for a proper appreciation of the contention raised before us. Joy, referred to above was arrested by the police on 23-12-1970 under S.48(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 (Act 5 of 1961). It reads: "Whoever is found, between sunset and sunrise (d) lying, or loitering in any bazaar, street; yard or other place being a reputed thief and without being able satisfactorily to account for his presence there, may be arrested by any police officer without a warrant and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months." Soon after the arrest Joy was produced before the Sub Magistrate, Ernakulam, who remanded him to custody. In the meanwhile the police started investigation during the course of which it was revealed that Joy was by habit a robber and a thief. He had been a previous convict in several theft and robbery cases. Therefore on completion of the investigation the Sub Inspector tiled a report against Joy before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, for taking action against him under S.110 Cr. P.C. The FIR. filed in the Sub Magistrate's Court was also transferred to the Additional First-Class Magistrate's Court. On receipt of the report under S.110 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate took it into file on 12 11971. P.C. The FIR. filed in the Sub Magistrate's Court was also transferred to the Additional First-Class Magistrate's Court. On receipt of the report under S.110 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate took it into file on 12 11971. When Joy was produced before that Magistrate on 4-2-1971, the order under S.112 Cr. P.C. was read over to him in accordance with the provisions of that section. He had nothing to say against that order. So on 1-3-1971 the Magistrate began examination of witnesses. pw.1 was examined on that day pw. 2 was examined on 15-3-1971. But the frial could not be proceeded with as Joy was admitted to the hospital for some treatment. pw. 3 was later examined on 14101971.On that day Joy filed an application for bail. The Magistrate allowed that application releasing him on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 1000/- with two sureties of the like amount. It was accordingly that the petitioners executed the bond in question on 14-10-1971 along with Joy and got the release of Joy from custody. Under the bond, the petitioners were to produce Joy in court on 15-11-1971 but on that day he was absent. Anyway pw. 4, the Sub Inspector, was examined as the last witness in the presence of his Advocate, however dispensing with the presence of Joy. Since then Joy had never been before the court. So on 311972 the Magistrate passed the impugned order under S.514 Cr. P.C. forfeiting the amount covered by the bond to the State and directing the petitioners as well as Joy to pay Rs. 300/- each as penalty, 3. This revision petition came first before a single judge of this Court It was referred to a Division Bench as a question of law was involved in the case. It was accordingly that the petition came up before us. 4. The question of law argued in the revision petition is that the security bond executed by Joy and the petitioners jointly to the lower court is invalid;and inoperative in law as according to the learned counsel of the petitioners there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for a Magistrate to direct a party who appears before him under S.107,108,109 or 110 Cr. P. C. to grant bail According to the learned counsel, the correct procedure to be followed is contained in S.117(3) Cr. P. C. to grant bail According to the learned counsel, the correct procedure to be followed is contained in S.117(3) Cr. P.C. which provides that the Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the party to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the enquiry. It is therefore contended that the lower court was not justified in releasing Joy under a bail bond jointly executed by him and his sureties as such a procedure is not contemplated by law being contrary to the provisions of Chapter VIII Cr.P.C in which S.107,108,109 and 110 occur. 5. S.107 provides the procedure of taking security for keeping peace, to prevent breach of peace. S.108 provides for security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matter, S.109 for good behaviour from vagrants and suspected persons and S.110 for security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. 6. The procedure in each of these cases begins with S.112. It requires that the Magistrate acting under S.110 shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties required. 7. The procedure next in order is contained in S.113,114 and 115, S.113 requires the Magistrate to read over the order he made under S.112 to the person proceeded against and explain to him, if he so desires, the substance of the order. If, however, the person proceeded against is not present in court, S.114 authorises the Magistrate to issue a summons requiring him to appear, or where such a person is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the court. The proviso to S.114 enjoins upon the Magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest to any person against whom an information is laid under S.110 if in the circumstances of the case the Magistrate is satisfied from the report of the police officer or otherwise that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace. 8. The proviso to S.114 enjoins upon the Magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest to any person against whom an information is laid under S.110 if in the circumstances of the case the Magistrate is satisfied from the report of the police officer or otherwise that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace. 8. S.115 provides that every summons or warrant issued under S.114 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under S.112 to be delivered over to the person against whom an order for the issue of summons or warrant has been made, as the case may be. 9. The purpose of S.113 to 115 is that the person proceeded against should personally appear before the Magistrate who will then read out the order made under S.112 against him. That personal attendance is very necessary is further clear from S.116 which gives the discretion to the Magistrate to dispense with his attendance and permit him to appear by a pleader. Though the order under S.112 can be made in absentia it is clear that the subsequent proceedings under Chapter VIII Cr. P. C. cannot be made in the absence of the party against whom proceeding is taken under S.107, 108, 109 or 110. The legislature insists that the person proceeded against should actually appear and be present while proceedings are held against him. S.117 makes the position clear abundantly. According to that section, when the order under S.112 has been read out or explained, if be is present upon a summons or warrant issued under S.114, the Magistrate shall proceed to enquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken. The Magistrate is bound to take such further evidence as may appear necessary for the purpose of the enquiry. Sub-s. (2) of S.117 lays down that the enquiry shall be made as nearly as maybe practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases. On account of this provision the procedure prescribed for conducting trials and taking down of evidence in summons case applies to proceedings where the order requires security for keeping the peace or where it requires good behaviour from habitual offenders. 10. On account of this provision the procedure prescribed for conducting trials and taking down of evidence in summons case applies to proceedings where the order requires security for keeping the peace or where it requires good behaviour from habitual offenders. 10. The sub-section (3) of S.117 then states that if the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of the breach of the peace, he may, pending the completion of the enquiry, direct the person in respect of whom the order under S.112 has been made to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace or otherwise. 11. S.118 states that if upon enquiry it is proved that the person be called upon to execute a bond for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, the Magistrate may call upon him to execute a bond. The security must not be more than that stated in the order under S.112 or excessive. Under S.119, the Magistrate may discharge the person or release him from custody if the necessity for keeping him bound over is not proved. The rest of the Sections in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not material for consideration here. 12. It is clear from these sections of Chapter VIII that it is incumbent upon the Magistrate under sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.117 to proceed to enquire into the truth of the information which he received under any one of the S.107,108,109 or 110. The third sub-section of S.117 empowers the Magistrate to ask for an interim bond pending the completion of the enquiry by him. This presupposes that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or the disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for public safety. This is applicable where the person is not in custody and his being at large without a bond may endanger public safety. However, the Magistrate has to justify his action giving reasons recorded in writing. If the person fails to execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate is empowered to detain him in custody. 13. This is applicable where the person is not in custody and his being at large without a bond may endanger public safety. However, the Magistrate has to justify his action giving reasons recorded in writing. If the person fails to execute a bond, with or without sureties, the Magistrate is empowered to detain him in custody. 13. If a person is In court either on account of a summons issued to him or is brought there in response to a warrant of arrest or as a result of the order under S.112, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate straightaway to make an enquiry under S.117 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards the truth of the information which has been laid before him under any of the S.107, 108, 109 or 110. It is only after a prima facie case is made out satisfying the Magistrate about the truth of the information and after recording his reasons in writing that he can ask the person concerned to execute an interim bond. On this question the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr (AIR. 1971 SC. 2486) may be seen, at page 2500: "In our opinion the words of the section are quite clear the order under S.112 is on hearsay but the inquiry under S.117 is to ascertain the truth of the necessary information. Sub section (1) contemplates an immediate inquiry into the truth of the information. It is pending the completion of the inquiry that an interim bond can be asked for if immediate measures are necessary; and in default it is necessary to put the person is custody." The decision states further in the same page: "It cannot be described as an inquiry within an inquiry as has been said in some cases. Some inquiry has to be made, before the bond can be ordered. We therefore, approve of those cases in which it has been laid down that some inquiry should be made before action is taken to ask for an interim bond on placing the person in custody in default." Those approved cases are: In re. Muttuswami (AIR. 1940 Madras 23 (FB.)); In Re. Venkatasubba Reddy (AIR. 1955 A. P. 96); Jagdish Prasad v. State (AIR. 1957 Pat. 106); Jalaluddin Kunju v. Stale (AIR. 1952 Trav-Co. 262); Shravan Kumar Gupta v. Supdt., District Jail, Mathura (AIR. 1957 All. Muttuswami (AIR. 1940 Madras 23 (FB.)); In Re. Venkatasubba Reddy (AIR. 1955 A. P. 96); Jagdish Prasad v. State (AIR. 1957 Pat. 106); Jalaluddin Kunju v. Stale (AIR. 1952 Trav-Co. 262); Shravan Kumar Gupta v. Supdt., District Jail, Mathura (AIR. 1957 All. 189); Jangir Singh v. State (AIR. 1960 Punjab 225); Rama Gowda v. State of Mysore (AIR. 1960 Mys. 259) and Ratilal Jasraj v. State (AIR. 1956 Bombay 385). 14. Once the Magistrate set in motion an enquiry under S.117 (1) and (2), no question of any release on bail arises, on the basis of S.91,167 or 344 Cr. P. C. In this regard the observation of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (AIR. 1971 SC. 2481) may be seen: "He was groping for some support from another part of the Code. Those sections have been dealt with by the Special Bench and held inapplicable to the facts of a trial under Chapter VIII which contains its own elaborate procedure for trial of a suspected person. It is not possible to overlook those provisions, which the Legislature has with great emphasis specified for the trial of such cases. In fact S: 91 applies to a person who is present in Court and is free because it speaks of his being bound over, to appear on another day before the Court. That shows that the person must be a free agent whether to appear or not. If a person is already under arrest and in custody, as were the petitioners, their appearance depended not on their own volition but on the volition of the person who had their custody. This Section was therefore inappropriate and the rulings cited in support of the case were wrongly decided as was held by the Special Bench. Similarly S.344 deals with the adjournment of a case. It is not a substitute for S.117 (3). S.117 (3) presumes that unless. the person is bound over, he would be able to perpetrate that act, which causes an apprehension of the breach of peace. It is not necessary to take a bond from a person who is already in detention and is not released. The danger arises when the man is free and not when he is in custody. It is to prevent his acting that the bond is taken or he is kept in custody till he gives the bond. It is not necessary to take a bond from a person who is already in detention and is not released. The danger arises when the man is free and not when he is in custody. It is to prevent his acting that the bond is taken or he is kept in custody till he gives the bond. S.344 deals with ordinary adjournment of a case and allows a person to be admitted to bail or the Court to remand him if he is in custody. This is not the case here. The petitioners were brought under the process of Chapter VIII. They were read over an Order under S.112 and if interim bonds were required from them the Magistrate ought to have entered upon the inquiry and satisfied himself, at least, prima facie about the truth of the information in relation to the alleged facts. Without making any enquiry, neither could the Magistrate order the petitioners to be detained in custody nor require them to execute a bond with or without surety." The Supreme Court concludes that decision with the following observation: "It is quite clear that the Magistrate was too much in hurry. He did not read the law to inform himself about what he was to do. Having the petitioners before him and having read to them the order under S.112 it was his duty either to release them unconditionally or to ask them to give an interim bond for good conduct but only after he has started inquiring into the truth of the information." 15. That the provisions of S.55, 91 or 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have no application to an enquiry under Chapter VIII of the Code is further reiterated is Madhu Limaye's case at page 2502. Para.48 reads: "Before we leave this topic it is necessary to emphasise that there is no room for invocation of other provisions of the Code such as S.55 or 91. in some of the cases of the High Courts, to which reference is not necessary, recourse has been taken to these provisions in aid of Chapter VIII. Apart from the fact (which we have sufficiently emphasised above) that S.55 deals with special cases of arrest and cannot be made applicable. S.107 itself speaks that the procedure of Chapter VIII should be followed, where S.112,113 and 114 of the Code prescribe their own procedures. Apart from the fact (which we have sufficiently emphasised above) that S.55 deals with special cases of arrest and cannot be made applicable. S.107 itself speaks that the procedure of Chapter VIII should be followed, where S.112,113 and 114 of the Code prescribe their own procedures. Similarly, S.91 may be available till the order under S.112 is drawn up. After it is drawn up the Magistrate has to act under S.113 and 117 (1). Then there is no room for S.91. The reasoning in some of the cases of which Vasudeo Ojha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR. 1958 All. 578) is ad example, is fallacious." 16. Again in Para.49 in the same page their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "There is also no question of bail to the person because if instead of an interim bond, bail for appearance was admissible Chapter VIII would undoubtedly have said so. Further bait is only for the continued appearance of a person and not to prevent him from com-mittiug certain acts. To release a person being proceeded against under S.107/112 of the Code is to frustrate the very purpose of the proceedings unless his good behaviour is ensured by taking a bond in that behalf." 17. It is abundantly clear from the ruling of the Supreme Court that there arises no question of taking an interim bail from a person or his surety for the appearance of that person in court during an enquiry under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the absence of any such provision in Chapter VIII the Magistrate who holds an enquiry under that Chapter will have no jurisdiction to release a person on bail under any of the other provisions of the Code. The success or failure of a party will therefore depend upon the result of an enquiry under S.117 Cr. P. C. If a prima facie case is made out during the enquiry under S.117(1) and (2) the Magistrate is competent to call upon the party to enter into an interim bond with or without sureties, as the case may be, under the terms of S.117 (3) Cr. P.C. If no such prima facie case is made out after the Magistrate entered upon an enquiry under S.117(1) and (2) immediately after the order under S.112 is read out to him, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge him forthwith. P.C. If no such prima facie case is made out after the Magistrate entered upon an enquiry under S.117(1) and (2) immediately after the order under S.112 is read out to him, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discharge him forthwith. 18. An order for interim security under S.117(3) cannot be passed by a Magistrate unless and until the enquiry referred to in S.117 (1) is commenced. An enquiry under S.117 (1) can be said to commence when the person sought to be proceeded against is brought or has appeared before the court to answer the charge against him. It may not, however, be understood that action under S.117 (3) depends always on the service of the order under S.112. It is the urgency of the situation which will determine the action under S.117 (3) in certain cases. No question of service of notice under S.112 arises in such cases of emergencies. If the exercise of the power under S.117 (3) is dependent on the service of the order under S.112 the very purpose of S.117 (3) may and frustrated in some cases. Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with prevention of offences. An interpretation which tends to delay or defeat such object cannot be accepted. That does not mean that the Magistrate need not make an enquiry before an order is passed under S.117 (3). An order made under S.117(3) is certainly bad if it is not accompanied by reasons recorded in writing why the Magistrate wants to take the measure contemplated under S.117(3). He should not base his conclusion on the police report alone. Besides making an enquiry he must apply his mind to the facts of the case and come to an independent conclusion as to whether sufficient and necessary grounds exist for taking immediate measures under S.117(3). The subordinate Magistrates and police officers shall note that the procedure provided for in Chapter VIII shall be strictly followed. There shall not be any time-lag between the appearance of the party before the Magistrate either in response to a summons or under order of an arrest warrant and the enquiry as required by sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.117 after the order under S.112 is drawn up. No question of granting a bail for appearance arises in such cases. There shall not be any time-lag between the appearance of the party before the Magistrate either in response to a summons or under order of an arrest warrant and the enquiry as required by sub-sections (1) and (2) of S.117 after the order under S.112 is drawn up. No question of granting a bail for appearance arises in such cases. Neither S.91 nor S.344 Cr.P.C, can be pressed into service for releasing the party on bail at that stage. Whether the party appeared before the Magistrate has to enter into an interim bond or whether he has to be discharged as a free citizen shall abide and follow the result of an enquiry to start with under sub-Ss.(1) and (2) of S.117. No other conclusion is possible on reading S.117 Cr.P.C. 19. In view of the conclusion arrived at on going through the Supreme Court rulings, the next question for consideration is whether the order passed by the Addl First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, on 14-10-1971 releasing Joy on bail on his bond for Rs. 1000/- with the petitioners as bis sureties under the same binding themselves to an equal amount is valid and binding on them. The order impugned in the instant case showed that Joy and the petitioners were directed to execute the bond for the appearance of Joy in Court on 15-11-1971 and for the petitioners to produce him of that day and the subsequent days to which the case was to be posted for hearing. There, was nothing, wrong for the Magistrate to have passed that order after he examined three witnesses as pws.1 to 3 in support of the information which had been laid against Joy under. S.110 Cr. P.C, by pw. 4, Sub Inspector. Though, the order dated 14-10-1971 stated that the bail was granted for the appearance. of Joy and for bis production in court by the petitioners, there is nothing improper for holding that the order was one for the execution of an interim bond within the meaning of S.117(3) Cr.P.C. In this regard reference may be made to another decision of the Supreme Court in Govinder Singh Verma v. Mrs, Bachubhai T. Pestonji (AIR. 1972 SC 528). 1972 SC 528). On a complaint under S.107 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate in the above case, passed the following order after the examination of two witnesses in support of the information laid under S.107 Cr.P.C. "This is a case under S.107, Criminal P.C. against two opponents Govinder Singh Verma, Narinder Singh Virdi and D. D. Zagade. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that there is a quarrel, threat, given to the applicant Bachubhai T. Pestonji. The statement of witness No.1 Jarauddin Hamifuddin Sheik Police Sub-Inspector recorded on 3-8-67 clearly shows that there is likelihood of a breach of peace and in order to prevent quarrel thereafter and a cognizable offence being committed by the opponents, I order that the opponents should execute a bond of Rupees 1000/- each with one surety of the tike amount for their appearance in this Court under S.91 of Criminal P.C." This order was upheld in appeal and in revision before the High Court. When it reached before the Supreme Court in appeal on special leave, it was contended that the surety bonds in question would amount to furnishing of bail. But the Supreme Court repelled that argument and stated as follows at page 530 S.117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers power on the Magistrate to direct the person in respect of whom order under S.112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made to execute a bond for keeping the peace. The respondent lodged a complaint under S.107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate examined the appellants find the Sub Inspector. The Magistrate has also passed an order under S.112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring each of the appellants to show cause why be should not be asked to furnish a surety and a personal bond for maintaining the peace. The High Court correctly held that the bonds which the appellants were directed to execute for keeping the peace were valid orders. For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed." In this decision the order of the Magistrate directing the bond to be executed for the appearance of the party under S.91 Cr. P.C. was found to be an birder falling within the ambit of S.117(3). For these reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed." In this decision the order of the Magistrate directing the bond to be executed for the appearance of the party under S.91 Cr. P.C. was found to be an birder falling within the ambit of S.117(3). In the same manner the order of the Magistrate dated 14-10-1971 directing Joy and the petitioners to enter into a bond for the appearance of joy as well as his production in court by the petitioners can be regarded and accepted as an interim bond under S.117(3) since that order was parsed after the procedure provided in S.112 and 113 Cr. P.C. had been complied with. So there is no illegality and irregularity in the order impugned in this case. 20. However, taking into consideration the delay in proceeding against the petitioners, it is justified in the circumstances of the case, to reduce the amount of penalty to Rs. 100/- each. 21. In the result, the revision petition is allowed to the extent of reducing the liability of each of the petitioners to Rs. 100/- under the bond; in other respects the Revision Petition is dismissed. Narayana Pillai J.:-A bond for appearance with similar terms as the bond involved in the present case was construed by the Supreme Court in Govinder Singh Verm v. Mrs. Bachnbhai T. Pestonji (AIR 1972 S.C.528) to be an interim bond for keeping the peace as contemplated by S.117(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. As in that case in the present case also some evidence to show that tbet6 was likelihood of breach of the peace had been taken by the Magistrate before he took the bond. I agree in modifying the order of the lower court by reducing the liability of each of the petitioners to Rs. 100/- and allowing the Revision Petition only to that extent.