Judgment.-This is a reference under section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the learned Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, recommending the quashing of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsipatnam in M. P. No. 91 of 1972 and M.P. No.102 of 1972. 2. One P. Konda, who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner, submitted a petition under section 07, Criminal Procedure Code, against P. Appanna and four others, who will hereinafter be referred to as the respondents, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsipatnam, in July, 1971 alleging that the respondents were interfering with the possession of his land situate in the village of Chandrayyapalam in Narsipatnam taluk and there was likelihood of breach of peace. The petition was registered as M. C. No.11 of 1971. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded the petition to the police for inquiry and report. After receipt of a report from the police, he issued a preliminary order under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, on nth September, 1971. The respondents appeared before him and were examined on 16th September, 1971. The case M.C.No.11 of 1971 was being posted for inquiry from time to time. While so, on 25th May, 1962 the petitioner filed a petition under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, praying that interim bonds might be obtained from the respondents to keep peace pending disposal of the main case M.C. No.11 of 1971. This petition was numbered as M.P. No. 91 of 1972, and after notice to the respondent the same was posted for inquiry. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner on 8th June, 1972 and the M. P. No. 91 of 1972, was posted to 22nd June, 1972 for further proceedings. On 22nd June, 1972 the petitioner again filed another petition alleging that the respondents trespassed into his land armed with sticks and obstructed ploughing operations and beat some of his persons and that they even threatened to kill him and the members of his family. The second petition was numbered as M.P.No. 102 of 1972. On receiving this petition, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an endorsement which reads as follows: “Ask the Circle Inspector to speak to me on this. Notices may be issued to the other parties. posted to P. I.” Sd. 22nd June, 1972. (The letters ‘P.I.‘are evidently are abbreviations for personal inspection). 3. On 22nd June, 1972 a notice was sent to the Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam. Notices may be issued to the other parties. posted to P. I.” Sd. 22nd June, 1972. (The letters ‘P.I.‘are evidently are abbreviations for personal inspection). 3. On 22nd June, 1972 a notice was sent to the Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam. That note is as follows: “M. P. No.102 in M. C. No. 11 of 1971 dated 22nd June, 1972 Sub-Collector’s office, Narsipatnam. Note to The Circle Inspector Narsipatnam. One Palaparti Appalakonda of Chandrayyapalm filed a petition alleging that Palaparti Appanddora S/o Venkataswamy and 5 others are causing obstruction to the agricultural operations of the petitioner. These respondents are reported to be accused in Crl. No. 110 of 1970 of Narsipatnam police station. I am therefore directed by the Sub-Collector, Narsipatnam to inform you that the Sub-Collector wanted to speak with you in the matter. The Sub-Collector also wished to make a personal inspection of the lands in the matter at 8-00 a.m. on 28th June, 1972. Please therefore make it convenient to see the Sub-Collector, Narsipatnam on or before 27th June, 1972. Sd. for Sub-Collector Narsipatnam.” This note was received by the Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam on 27th June, 1972. On 28th June, 1972 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate visited the land in dispute and made the following note of local inspection: “During my personal Inspection I found that the lands of Respondents are surrounding the land about which there is a dispute between the parties, that the kallams of the Respondents are very nearby and that there is a strong probability of the respondents being more able to exercise what can be termed as ‘Locus standi’ than the petitioner. Further I have orally examined the villagers (1) Ventakula Chandrayya S/o. Pothuraju; (2) Ventakula Appanna S/o. Narappa; (3) Chitikala Nookanna; and (4) Ventakula Chandrayya S/o. Appalaswamy belonging to both the parties and I am satisfied that there exists a situation between the two parties which is likely to cause the breach of the peace in the area and I therefore feel it desirable to get the interim bonds executed by the Respondents.” On 6th July, 1972 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, passed an order in M. P. No. 91 of 1972 and M.P. No. 102 of 1972 in M.C. No. 11 of 1971 directing the respondents to execute interim bonds to keep the peace until the disposal of the main petition. The order shows that it was pronounced in open Court on the 6th day of July, 1972. The records show that notice were issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the respondents under the date 3rd July, 1972 directing the respondents to appear before him and to execute interim bonds on 6th July, 1972. 4. It is more than clear from the facts stated supra that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is highly irregular and unwarranted by law. No doubt section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, empowers a sub-Divisional Magistrate to direct the execution of interim bonds until the conclusion of an inquiry, but the power can be exercised only in a judicious manner and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. On 25th May, 1972 when the petitioner filed M. P. No. 91 of 1972 making serious allegations against the respondents, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has rightly instituted a regular inquiry into the allegations and examined three witnesses on behalf of the petitioner on 8th June, 1972. Having posted the matter to 22nd June, 1972 for further examination of witnesses he could not have short-circuited the inquiry in M.P. No. 91 of 1972 on receipt of the petition M.P. No. 102 of 1972. It is indeed surprising that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have thought it proper to speak to the Inspector of Police when the inquiry in M.P. No. 91 of 1972 was in progress. It is not known from the records whether the Inspector of Police and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had a talk in connection with the case pending against the respondents. What is still worse is, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of information received by him from persons examined at the disputed land when he inspected the same. What is still worse is, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of information received by him from persons examined at the disputed land when he inspected the same. Section 539-B (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reads as follows: “Any Judge or Magistrate may at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, after due notice to the parties, visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at such inquiry or trial, and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection.” The section permits a Magistrate to make a local inspection and not a local inquiry. A local inspection is permitted only for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence in the case and it cannot be allowed to take the place of evidence. While making a local inspection, a Magistrate should avoid making enquiries from the people on the spot with regard to the truth or otherwise of the matter in dispute. A Magistrate should not allow himself to be prejudiced in his mind one way or the other by the information that might be given by persons who gather at the place of inspection. Whenever local inspections are made it is incumbent on the Magistrate’s to exercise caution and impartiality and to evince great care for the avoidance of village gossip or vague rumours reaching their ears. By a local inspection a Magistrate can use the testimony of his own senses to test the veracity of the witnesses who give evidence before him regarding the features of the locality, but not for deciding the points of controversy between the parties solely with reference to the observations made at the local inspection. The Magistrate ought not to have acted upon the information given by the four persons referred to in his notes of inspection without examining them regularly as witnesses and recording their evidence after allowing the parties an opportunity to cross-examine them. 5. The Magistrate ought not to have acted upon the information given by the four persons referred to in his notes of inspection without examining them regularly as witnesses and recording their evidence after allowing the parties an opportunity to cross-examine them. 5. The order of the Magistrate under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, is based entirely on his observations made during his local inspection and the extrajudicial information collected by him at that time; it does not contain any reference whatever to the evidence of any of the three witnesses examined before the Court. The order is without doubt vitiated by incurable irregularities and it is accordingly quashed. In the result the reference is accepted.