Order.- On the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Channapatna Rural Police Station, stating that there were disputes between petitioners, who are caste Hindus, and Harijans of Mankunda Village; that on 17th October, 1972, i.e., Vijayadasami day, when the procession of the village deity was taken their dispute reached a climax; that on 23th December, 1972 one Chikkakendaiah, a Harijan, made a complaint against petitioners 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 alleging that they had planned to assault and to murder him in connection with a land dispute and money transaction; that on 14th January, 1973 a police constable who was on duty in that village had reported that on 1st March, 1973 while one Hombalaiah, a Harijan, was beating a drum in connection with Pongal festival the petitioners picked up a quarrel, which was likely to cause breach of peace; that one Nanjaiah, another Harijan, had given a complaint alleging that petitioners 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 17 and 18 assaulted him and his wife and in that connection a case in Crime No. 6 of 1973 had been registered under section 341 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code that on 17th January, 1973 one Ballayya orally reported that when he was returning to the village petitioner 16 hit him on his face with hands, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramanagaram, initiated proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners directing them to appear before the Magistrate on 27th March, 1973 and to execute bonds for Rs. 500 each to keep peace in the village. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate further directed the petitioners to show cause as to why interim bonds should not be taken from them as mentioned in the preliminary order during the pendency of the case. The later order purports to be one under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Except in regard to one incident, regarding which a case has been registered under section 341 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code against some of the petitioners, the other wrongful acts alleged against some of the petitioners are very vague. It appears that the facts, as were stated by the Police, were not such as to encourage the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. It appears that the facts, as were stated by the Police, were not such as to encourage the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Section 107 is one of the sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure designed to enable public officers to take action to prevent the commission of offences. They confer wide and unusual powers on the officers concerned. As the exercise of these powers necessarily results in interference with the liberty of the subject, the powers must be exercised strictly in accordance with law. Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, empowers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to require a person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit on receipt of information that such person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, or is likely to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, or disturb the public tranquillity, if in the opinion of the Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The sine que non for the institution of a proceeding under this section is that the Magistrate shall be of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Now it is clear from a perusal of the order that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not directed the petitioners to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds with or without sureties for keeping the peace for such a period not exceeding one year. As could be seen, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has, in fact, directed them to execute bonds to keep peace in the village for an unspecified period. 4. In the same order the Magistrate has directed the petitioners to execute interim bonds. That direction also is very vague. That apart, the question, that arises for consideration is whether a Magistrate is justified in demanding an ad interim bond under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code while making an order under section 112 of the Code. 4. In the same order the Magistrate has directed the petitioners to execute interim bonds. That direction also is very vague. That apart, the question, that arises for consideration is whether a Magistrate is justified in demanding an ad interim bond under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code while making an order under section 112 of the Code. The enquiry as to the truth of the information upon, which action has been taken starts after the order under section 112 has been read over and explained under section 113 to a person present in Court or when any such person appears, or is brought before the Magistrate in compliance with or in execution of a summons or warrant issued under section 114. When proceeding to enquire into the truth of the information under section 117 (1), the Magistrate is empowered to take such further evidence as may appear to him to be necessary. Section 117 (3) runs 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 under section 112 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining 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.” It appears from a reading of this sub-section that an interim order under this sub-section is to be made in the case of an emergency and must have direct relation to the object for which the proceedings are taken. A review of the relevant sections in Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure will show that two types of emergency must exist — one in the case of a person being proceeded against, prior to his appearance before a Magistrate under the proviso to section 114 and the other when he is already present in Court or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with or in execution of a summons or a warrant. The nature of the two emergencies is quite distinct and separate. 5. The nature of the two emergencies is quite distinct and separate. 5. It is only when the person is present in Court or has been brought before the Court that the Magistrate can take into consideration whether circumstances do exist for taking immediate measures and, when he is fully satisfied that such circumstances do exist, then and then only he can direct the execution of an ad interim bond. Before taking action under this section, the Magistrate has to give reasons in writing. It is manifestly clear that section 112 and section 117 provide two different procedures for two different ends and, therefore, a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 117 (3) along with one under section 112, as has been done in this case. 6. In the present case when the Magistrate passed an order under section 117, (3) the petitioners were not before him and he had not started to enquire into the truth of the information upon which action had been taken. An emergency order under section 117 (3) can only be made when the Magistrate has started to enquire into the truth of the information under section 117 (1). In the course of such an enquiry if the Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary then only he can resort to an emergency order under section 117 (3). 7. It has to be pointed out that the learned Magistrate has taken action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code on the report of the Police against all the petitioners even though the report of the police was against some of the petitioners. As against petitioners 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 19 there is nothing alleged, much less is there any suggestion that they had committed unlawful acts and that they were likely to commit such acts, which would result in breach of the peace in the locality. Section 107 (I) shows that a Magistrate can only act against a person upon receiving information that he is likely to commit a breach of the peace or to disturb the public tranquillity. Sub-section (2) of this section lays down that proceedings shall not be taken under this section unless either the person informed against or the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within the local limits of such Magistrate’s jurisdiction and so on. Sub-section (2) of this section lays down that proceedings shall not be taken under this section unless either the person informed against or the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within the local limits of such Magistrate’s jurisdiction and so on. These two sub-sections make it quite clear that prior to the initiation of proceedings information must be given against a person from whom it is sought to take security. In the present case no information was given against petitioners 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14 and 19 to the effect that they were likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and it was quite illegal for the Magistrate to issue notice to them. Apart from this, the order in question merely mentions some past: misconduct of some of the petitioners. The allegations in that regard are again vague. There must be something more than the mere past misconduct of the persons sought to be proceeded against and the Magistrate must be satisfied that there was likelihood of breach of the peace. The preliminary order being very vague, it cannot be sustained. I, accordingly, allow this revision petition and set aside the order passed under section 112 and the one purported to be under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. S.V.S. ----- Petition allowed.