JUDGEMENT 1. This reference is made by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Panaji, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the order of the Magistrate, First Class, Daman dated 23-10-70 ordering the appellants to furnish interim bonds be set aside as it does not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 117(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. A representation was made by Gullabbhai Vallabhbhai Dessai, Respondent No. 2, to the Collector, Daman, praying that action under Sections 107 and 153, Cr. P.C. be taken against the petitioners. It appears that the matter was sent for the report of the police. The police submitted the report whereupon the Magistrate ordered to issue notices against the petitioners to show cause why an order under Section 107 be not made against them to furnish bonds for keeping peace for a period of one year for the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. 3. The petitioners appeared before the Court and they showed their willingness in show cause to the notice. From the roznama it appears that thereafter the matter was fixed for argument on 20-10-70, but on an application of the opposite party the matter was adjourned to 23-10-70. After hearing the arguments the Magistrate passed an order requiring the respondents to immediately execute the interim bonds of Rupees 1000/- each with two sureties in the like amount till inquiry is completed failing which the petitioners would be committed to custody. 4. It is against this order that the revision application is filed before the learned Sessions Judge. One of the points contended before him was that the order inasmuch as he has given no reasons for the conclusions he has arrived at. According to the learned Sessions Judge Section 117(3) makes a mandatory provision upon the Magistrate before making an order for furnishing interim bonds that he should record reasons for passing such order. I agree with the learned Sessions Judge. The provisions of Section 117(3) clearly mention that the order of interim bonds should be passed after recording reasons therefor. The Magistrate has simply stated that "after hearing the arguments he positively feels that some immediate steps are to be taken against the opponents for immediate prevention of breach of peace". The grounds upon which he arrived at this conclusion are not all mentioned. The Magistrate has simply stated that "after hearing the arguments he positively feels that some immediate steps are to be taken against the opponents for immediate prevention of breach of peace". The grounds upon which he arrived at this conclusion are not all mentioned. It has been held in a number of cases that the Magistrate whilst acting under Sub-Section (3) of Section 117, Cr. P.C. has to make careful consideration as regards to the separate case of emergency as contemplated under the said section and he must be satisfied that immediate steps are necessary. The fact that the police report indicated that the members of the opposite party were likely to create breach of the peace is not sufficient to pass an order and cannot be said that the Magistrate has given a careful consideration to the existence of a case of emergency when he merely relies on a police report without even calling the police officer to the witness box. The impugned order was passed without making any further inquiry, such as calling for affidavits etc. after the petitioners showed cause. If at all this was made, there is nothing on record to show that it was. Neither has the Magistrate recorded his reasons. An order made under Sub-Section (3) is bad if it is not accompanied by reasons recorded in writing why the Magistrate wants to take the emergency measures. (C.D. Courpalay v. State Mysore' 1961 Cri LJ 536 (Mys)). 5. I therefore accept the recommendation made by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Magistrate for proceeding according to law if the situation demands. Case remanded.