Order.- This petition arises out of an order dated 17th November, 1977 made by the Taluka Magistrate, Madhugiri in Case No. C. Misc. 9 of 1977-78 directing the petitioners herein who were respondents 2 and 5 before the Court below and 17 others to execute interim bonds with sureties for Rs. 500 for good behaviour till the conclusion of the case. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition may be stated as under: The Sub-Inspector of Kodigenahally sent a report along with the F.I.R. against these petitioners and 17 others (who will be hereinafter referred to as the respondents) on 22nd July, 1977 to the Court of the Tahsildar and Taluka Magistrate, Madhugiri to take action under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly called the ‘Code’). The Executive Magistrate directed notice to be issued to the respondents directing them to appear on 24th August, 1977. On 24th August, 1977, some of the respondents appeared. The sworn statement of the Sub-Inspector of Police was recorded. In the sworn statement, the Sub-Inspector of Police prayed for initiating proceedings against the respondents under section 107 and also to obtain interim bonds under section 116 (3) of the Code. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 14th September, 1977 for orders on ad interim bond. On 14th September, 1977 when the case was called, some of the respondents appeared. On that day, the Magistrate made the following order in the order-sheet: “……The Court is convinced that there is need to proceed with the case as there is apprehension of. Breach of peace in the village. Preliminary order is therefore, passed under section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code for issue of show-cause-notice to the respondents to show cause as to why bond should not be obtained from them for maintenance of good behaviour”. Thereupon the case was posted to 4th October, 1977 for further proceedings. On 4th October, 1977 and 25th October, 1977 time was sought for by the respondents to file their replies to the show cause issued to them. Extension of time was allowed and the case was posted to 17th November, 1977 for arguments on the question of obtaining interim bonds from the respondents for maintenance of peace in the locality. 3. On 17th November, 1977 the Magistrate made an order directing the respondents to execute interim bonds, reads thus: “Case called. Parties present. Extension of time was allowed and the case was posted to 17th November, 1977 for arguments on the question of obtaining interim bonds from the respondents for maintenance of peace in the locality. 3. On 17th November, 1977 the Magistrate made an order directing the respondents to execute interim bonds, reads thus: “Case called. Parties present. As per the report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Madhugiri today, there have been continued tension in the village with frequent incidents leading to breach of peace and the Court is convinced that there is imminent need to obtain interim bond from all the respondents for good behaviour till the disposal of this case to avoid breach of peace in the locality. Heard the respondents also. It is therefore, ordered under section 117(3)(sic) of the Criminal Procedure Code that all the 19 respondents who stand charged in this case shall execute necessary interim bond with sureties for Rs. 500 each till the conclusion of the case. The respondents are directed to appear before the Court on 21st November, 1977 at 11 a.m. for executing the bonds”. On 21st November, 1977 some of the respondents appeared in person. The rest remained absent. The Counsel appearing for the respondents undertook to keep the respondents, who were absent on that day, present on the next date of hearing. Thereupon the Court made the order directing the respondents present in Court to execute interim bonds on that day in terms of the previous order and the rest of the respondents to comply with the order on 23rd November, 1977. 4. It is the correctness of these two orders dated 17th November, 1977 and 21st November, 1977 that is under challenge in this criminal petition. 5. Sections 106 to 124 occurring in Chapter VIII of the Code deal with security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour. Section 106 provides for security for keeping the peace on conviction and section 107 provides for security for keeping the peace in other cases. Sections 108, 109 and 110 deal with security for good behaviour from person’s disseminating seditious matters, suspected persons and habitual offenders respectively. 6. Sections 111 onwards lay down the procedure to be followed in the proceedings initiated for security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour. 7. Sections 108, 109 and 110 deal with security for good behaviour from person’s disseminating seditious matters, suspected persons and habitual offenders respectively. 6. Sections 111 onwards lay down the procedure to be followed in the proceedings initiated for security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour. 7. In this case action was proposed to be taken against the respondents under section 107 of the Code. 8. Section 107 stipulates that when an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit, in the manner provided in the succeeding provision of Chapter VIII. 9. As to how an order requiring a person to show cause under sections 107, 108, 109 and 110 is to be made is provided under section 111, reads thus: “When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the manner, character and class of sureties (if any) required”. 10. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the preliminary order dated 14th September, 1977 made under section 111 of the Code is invalid, not toeing in compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 111, and as such the subsequent action taken against the respondent calling upon them to execute interim bonds is equally invalid and liable to be, set aside as it has no legal sanction. 11. 11. A plain reading of the provisions contained in sections 106 to 110 would reveal that a clear distinction is made in the object of obtaining security under sections 106 and 107 of the Code on the one hand, in which case the security to be obtained is one for keeping the peace and sections 108, 109 and and 110 of the Code on the other, in which case the security to be contained is one for good behaviour. 12. It is manifest from the records of the case that the learned Magistrate who had proposed to take action against the respondents under section 107 has not understood the scope of the proceedings under section 107 of the Code. The proceedings under section 107, could be initiated against a person only upon making an order as contemplated under section 111 of the Code. In other words, an order in compliance with the provisions of section 111 will be the foundation for the proceedings under section 107 and other sections referred to therein. In the instant case, the order dated 14th September, 1977 made under section 107 of the Code is not in compliance with the provisions of section 111 of the Code. It is provided under section 111 of the Code that when a Magistrate acting under section 107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under that section he may make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. A reading of the order dated 14th September, 1977 would clearly show that the learned Magistrate has not complied with any of the requirements of section 111. No doubt he has made the order purporting to be one under section 111 of the Code in writing, but the order in question is bereft of the requirements of section 111 of the Code, such as, the substance of information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the terms for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. If the order dated 14th September, 1977 passed in this case is read keeping in view the provisions of section 111 of the Code, it would not be difficult to come to the conclusion that the order in question is not valid as it is not in compliance with the provisions of section 111 of the Code, A legal and valid preliminary order under section 111, is sine qua non for initiating the proceedings under section 107 of the Code. In other words, in a proceeding under section 107 of the Code, the preliminary order under section 111 is the starting point or the very foundation of it. In the instant case, it is revealed from the records that the learned Magistrate instead of initiating the proceedings against the respondents after making a valid preliminary order as contemplated under section 111 of the Code, commenced the proceedings by issue of summons to the respondents in the ordinary way and having secured the presence of some of the respondents and after recording the sworn statement of the P.S.I. in their presence, passed the preliminary order contemplated under section 111 of the Code. Thus, it is clear that the learned Magistrate took action against the respondents before making a preliminary order under section 111 of the Code. This is a serious defect in the case. 13. Apart from the other defects pointed out supra in the order dated 14th September, 1977, the learned Magistrate thought of issuing a show cause notice to the respondents as to why they should not be directed to execute bond for maintenance of good behaviour instead of for keeping the peace, which is the object of section 107 of the Code. It is specifically provided under section 107, that when a Magistrate acting under the said section, requires a person to show cause why he should not be directed to execute a bond, it should be for keeping the peace for a specified period, not exceeding one year, and not for good behaviour, and the order to show cause to be made is one as provided under section 111 of the Code. Thus, it is obvious that the proceedings initiated against the respondents on the basis of the order dated 14th September, 1977 is clearly invalid. Thus, it is obvious that the proceedings initiated against the respondents on the basis of the order dated 14th September, 1977 is clearly invalid. If the proceedings initiated against the respondents is invalid in law for failure to comply with the provisions of section 111 of the Code, then the other proceedings taken subsequent thereto will not have any legal sanction. 14. Apart from what has been stated above, it appears to me, that the impugned orders dated 17th November, 1977 and 21st November, 1977 calling upon the respondents to execute the interim bonds cannot be legally sustained on their own merits. The order dated 17th November, 1977 calling upon the respondents to execute interim bonds with sureties for Rs. 500 each, till, the conclusion of the case is purported to have been made under section 116(3) of the Code, though the provision quoted therein is one under section 117(3) of the Code. It will be relevant to reproduce the material portion of sub-section (3) of section 116, reads as follows: “Sub-section (3): After the commencement, and before 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 tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the persons in respect of whom the order under section 111 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; Provided that- (a) no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109, or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour”. Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 116 is not relevant for our purpose. 15. It is seen ‘from the order, dated 17th November, 1977, that the respondents were called upon to execute interim bonds for good behaviour till the disposal of the case to avoid breach of the peace in the locality. Clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 116 is not relevant for our purpose. 15. It is seen ‘from the order, dated 17th November, 1977, that the respondents were called upon to execute interim bonds for good behaviour till the disposal of the case to avoid breach of the peace in the locality. In the first place, the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason for calling upon the respondents to enter into the interim bond, which is one of the essential conditions required to be complied with in an order made under sub-section (3) of section 116. He has merely stated that the Court is convinced from the report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Madhugiri that there have been continued tension in the village with frequent incidents leading to breach of peace without referring to any particular incident. It looks as though the learned Executive Magistrate was solely guided by the report of the Circle Inspector of Police for making the impugned order. The impugned order which is one purported to have been made under section 116(3) is devoid of any reasons for calling upon the respondents to enter into interim bonds. Further, it is specifically provided under clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 116 that no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under sections 108, 109 and 110 of the Code shall be directed to execute the bond for maintaining good behaviour. What is legally prohibited under clause (a) of the proviso is what exactly the learned Executive Magistrate has done under the impugned order in directing the respondents to execute the interim bonds for good behaviour. 16. In that view of the matter and also for the other reasons stated supra, the proceedings initiated against the respondents (petitioners herein and others) in case No. C. Mis. 9 of 1997-78 including the impugned orders are hereby set aside.