Judgment : Counter petitioners in M.C.No. 30 of 1990 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi, have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C., to call for the records in the said case and quash the same. 2. Short facts are: Sub-Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, has passed an order under Sec.111, Crl.P.C, calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be directed to execute bond for Rs. l,000 each with one surety for a like sum under Sec.111, Crl.P.C. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that Sec.111, Crl.P.C., is common for acting under Secs.107, 108 and 109, Crl.P.C and the impugned order does not disclose as under what particular provisions of Crl.P.C, the learned Sub-Collector Wants to act while passing the impugned order. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, I find that the learned Executive Magistrate has not referred to the provisions of Crl.P.C. under which he proposes to act while passing the impugned order under Sec.111, Crl.P.C That would clearly show that there is total non-application of mind and so on that ground this order is liable to be set aside. In this regard, the learned counsel relied upon Jayavelu v. Inspector of Police, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 38. With respect, I am of the same view of Justice Padmini Jesudurai. 4. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the order passed in M.C.No. 30 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Sub-Collector, Cheranmahadevi is hereby quashed.