NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 25-10-1979 passed by the Sessions Judge, uttara Kannada, Karwar, purporting to be in exercise of his appellate powers in Criminal Appeal no. 70 of 1979 and setting aside the order dated 17-9-1979 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Bhatkal, in C. C. No. 474 of 1979. ( 2 ) THE Magistrate issued a preliminary order under section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code invoking the provisions of Section 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The respondents were present before him on 17-9-1979 as per the preliminary order. On 17-9-1979, the Magistrate asked the respondents to execute a bond for Rs. 500/- each with one surety, but the respondents pleaded inability to furnish sureties. He then proceeded to take them into custody sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The respondents challenged this order in the Sessions Court and the Sessions Judge set aside the order. ( 3 ) SECTION 109 of the Cr. P. C. provides that a preliminary order has to be issued as per the provisions of Section 111 of the Cr. P. C. Service of the preliminary order so issued is to be effected as laid down by Sections 112 and 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the service being effected, the Magistrate has to proceed as contemplated by Section 116 of the Cr. P. C. Section 116 (1) and (2) lay down that an enquiry has to be held by the Magistrate to ascertain the truth of the information upon which action has been taken by him. S. 116 (3) of the Cr. P. C. empowers the Magistrate, in cases where 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 to direct the person or persons in respect of whom an order under section 111 has been made to execute a bond with or without sureties. ( 4 ) THE order passed by the Magistrate has been, as already noted, passed when the respondents appeared before him in response to the preliminary order issued under section 111 of the Cr. P. C. The Magistrate had not passed any order under sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Cr. ( 4 ) THE order passed by the Magistrate has been, as already noted, passed when the respondents appeared before him in response to the preliminary order issued under section 111 of the Cr. P. C. The Magistrate had not passed any order under sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Cr. P. C. When that is so, the Magistrate was required to hold an enquiry as contemplated by Section 116 (1) and (2) of the Cr. P. C. He had no power to direct the respondents to execute a bond with or with or without sureties as he had not passed an order under section 116 (3) of the Cr. P. C. Hence, it is plain that the Magistrate has exercised a power which he did not possess at the stage when he passed the order in question. ( 5 ) THE learned State Public Prosecutor pointed out that the Sessions Judge could not have entertained the appeal in view of Section 373 of the Cr. P. C. as the order in question was not a final order under section 117 of the Cr. P. C. But we find that the Sessions Judge could have passed the order now challenged in exercise of his revisional powers and, therefore, when justice has been done, we do not attach much importance to this aspect submitted by the State Public prosecutor. ( 6 ) HENCE, we do not consider this a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Leave is rejected. ( 7 ) ORDER accordingly.