Judgment :- This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukkottai, under section 116(3), Cr.P.C. calling upon the petitioners to execute an interim bond till the disposal of the proceedings in M.C. No. 55 of 1984 on his file. The said order was challenged mainly on the ground that the learned Magistrate, without making any enquiry into the truth of the information and without commencing the enquiry, has passed the said order and it is illegal. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (1972 Mad LW (Cri) (SN) 1) : 1971 CrLJ 1715 ) which runs as follows (paras 15 and 16). "It appears that the Magistrate used the powers Under Section 117(3) without commencing to enquire into the truth of the information. No sworn statement of any kind was obtained by him and he adjourned the cases for the examination of the petitioners without summoning the witnesses in support of the information. He however, asked the petitioners to furnish an interim bond or go to jail. It appears to us that the powers of the Magistrate to ask for an interim bond were not properly exercised in this case and consequently the order to the petitioners to furnish interim bond could not be made. That stage had not been reached under the scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate could ask for an interim bond only if he could not complete the enquiry, and 'during the completion of the enquiry' postulates commencement of the enquiry, which means commencing of a trial according to the summons procedure. It was not given to the Magistrate to postpone the case and hear nobody and yet ask the petitioners to furnish a bond for good conduct. The Magistrate should have made at least some effort to get a statement from Brij Mohan or Yed Murti Bhatt or any of the witnesses named in the challan. Nothing of this kind was done. Therefore, the proceedings for asking for an interim bond were completely illegal" * Relying on the above decision of the Supreme Court in Thenmalaiyandi v. State 1983 Mad LW (Cri) 313 : 1984 CrLJ 1079 ) S. Natarajan, J., held thus (At p. 1081). Nothing of this kind was done. Therefore, the proceedings for asking for an interim bond were completely illegal" * Relying on the above decision of the Supreme Court in Thenmalaiyandi v. State 1983 Mad LW (Cri) 313 : 1984 CrLJ 1079 ) S. Natarajan, J., held thus (At p. 1081). "The Second illegality is that the Magistrate while passing the preliminary order, has called upon the counter petitioner to execute interim bonds each in a sum of Rs. 1, 000/- with two sureties each in like sum. The Supreme Court has clearly held in Madhu Limaye v. Vedamurthi 1972 Mad LW (Cri) (SN) 1 : 1971 CrLJ 1715 ) that before an order for execution of interim bond is passed, the enquiry must have commenced and there must be prima facie material before the Magistrate to justify an order being passed for execution of interim bonds pending completion of enquiry. In this case, even before the enquiry has started, the Magistrate has passed the order for execution of interim bonds and this is patently against law. Hence, on these two grounds alone, the order deserves to be quashed." * 2. In the instant case, the parties appeared before the Magistrate on 5-4-1984 in pursuance of the Criminal notice served on them and the matter was adjourned to 16-4-1984. In the meanwhile, on the receipt of the report from the police, the learned Magistrate straightway passed an order under section 116(3), of Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners herein to execute the interim bond. It is significant to note that neither the details of the bond nor the period was mentioned. The learned Magistrate has also not applied his mind or held any enquiry on receipt of the report from the police. Nor any opportunity was given to the petitioners to put forth their contentions. As laid down by the Supreme Court and also by this Court in the decisions cited above, the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate is clearly illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. In the result, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aruppukkottai, calling upon the petitioners under S. 116(3) Cr.P.C. to execute the interim bond is hereby set aside and this petition is allowed.