Judgment : Counter petitioner No. 1 and counter-petitioners 2 to 7 in M.C.No. 9 of 1993 on the file of the Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, have filed these petitions under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in the said case and quash the same. 2. The short facts are: On the information furnished by the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi, the Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Magistrate, Paramakudi has passed order under Sec. 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, acting under Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, citing three instances and calling upon the counter-petitioners to show as to why they should not be directed to execute bonds of Rs. 2,000 each. Aggrieved by the same, the counter-petitioners in the said M.C.No. 9 of 1993 have filed these two petitions. 3. Mr.P. Sivathanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the impugned proceedings do not reflect the subjective satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate and that the impugned proceedings do not give the period for which the bonds were to be executed and on these two infirmities, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. I have heard Mr.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above points. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsel. 5. The Executive Magistrate acting under Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can pass an order under Sec.111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only in a case where he is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In the instant case, such subjective satisfaction on the part of the Executive Magistrate is not reflected in the impugned proceedings. Thus, one of the essential ingredients required for acting under Sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is singificantly absent and on that score, it is liable to be quashed. 6. Further more, the impugned proceeding does not specify the period for which the counter-petitioners were directed to show cause for executing the bonds. Sec. 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates that the bond to be executed shall specify the amount for which the bond is to be executed and the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. Sec. 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure postulates that the bond to be executed shall specify the amount for which the bond is to be executed and the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. The impugned proceedings does not given the terra for which the bond is to be in force. This is another infirmity in the impugned proceedings. In view of the above, both these petitions are allowed and all further proceedings in M.C.No. 9 of 1993, on the file of the Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Paramakudi, shall stand quashed.