Order.- The Sessions Judge, Bangalore, has made the above two references under section 438 (1), Criminal procedure Code, to this Court recommending that the orders passed by the Taluka Magistrate under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the revision petitioners to execute interim bonds for keeping peace or for good behaviour be quashed. At the outset, the learned State Public Prosecutor while submitting that the impugned order is void in law did not support the reasons given by thelearned Sessions Judge for quashing the order. He therefore submitted that the references made by the learned Sessions Judge in the above two cases be converted into Criminal Revision Petitions in this Court and the same be quashed by this Court. Sri B. Subbiah, appearing for the respondents raised no objection to the course suggested by the learned State Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, they are treated as Criminal Revision Petitions and. disposed of by a common order. Facts which give rise to these Revision Petitions are as follows: In Crl.R. P. No. 28 of 1967, the Circle Inspector of Police, Chickpet Sub-Division, Bangalore, filed his report dated 9th November, 1966, against the respondent before the Executive Magistrate, for taking action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. On 10th November, 1966, the Executive Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the Circle Inspector and on the same day be proceeded to pass an order under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the present revision petitioner to execute an interim bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000 with a surety for the like sum for keeping peace or for good behaviour for a period of 6 months. In Cr.R.P. No. 29 of 1967, the Circle Inspector of Police, Market Sub Division Bangalore City, filed a report dated 1st December, 1966, against the respondents before the Executive Magistrate for taking action under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. On 12th December, 1966, the Executive Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the Circle Inspector and on the same day passed an order under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the respondents to execute an interim bond for a sum of Rs. 500 each with a surety for the like sum for keeping peace or for good behaviour for a period of six months. 500 each with a surety for the like sum for keeping peace or for good behaviour for a period of six months. The respondents in both the cases preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, challenging the legality and correctness of the proceedings and requested, the Sessions Judge to recommend to the High Court for quashing the impugned orders. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the revision petitions and considering the legal contentions raised by the Public Prosecutor and the Advocates appearing for the petitioners came to the following conclusion: “Part III-A in Schedule III is introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure by the amending Act and in effect it enacts the powers of a Taluka Magistrate and one of the powers so enacted is to invest Taluka Magistrate with the powers to entertain security proceedings contemplated under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, and that the Taluka Magistrates are not authorised in the body of section 107, Criminal Procedure Code.” Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is of the view that there is a conflict between the provisions in the body of the Act and the powers listed in Part III-A of Schedule III. Further he was of the view that the provisions contained in section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, prevail over the provisions contained in Part III-A of Schedule III to the Act and in that view of the matter, he upheld the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the Taluka Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain security proceedings contemplated in section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The questions for decision are: “(1) Whether there exists really any conflict between the powers listed in Part III-A of Schedule III and the provisions of the amended, section 107, Criminal Procedure Code? and (2) Whether the Taluka Magistrate has got powers to require security to keep the peace either under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, or under the powers listed in Schedule III and IV of the Criminal Procedure Code.” The learned State Public Prosecutor contended that there exists no conflict between the powers listed in Part III-A of Schedule III and the provisions of the amended section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. He further contended that the Taluka Magistrate has no power to require security to keep peace either under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, or under the powers listed in Schedule III and IV of Criminal Procedure Code. He took me through the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mysore Amendment Act of 1965 to be hereinafter called the ‘Amendment Act’ and also the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to be hereinafter referred to as the ‘principal Act’. Section 4 of the Amendment Act inserts a new section 6-A to the principal Act which creates two classes of Magistrates: I. Judicial Magistrates: 1. Magistrates of the First Class; 2. Magistrates of the Second Class; 3. Magistrates of the Third Class; 4. Special Judicial Magistates. II. Executive Magistrates;- 1. District Magistrates; 2. Sub-Divisional Magistrates; 3. Taluk Magistrates; 4. Special Executive Magistrates. Section 14 of the amendment Act amends section 36 of the principal Act and substitutes the words ‘Judicial and Executive Magistrates other than Special Judicial and Special Executive Magistrates“for the words”District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates and Magistrates of the first, second and third classes“. After the amendment, section 36 of the principal Act reads as under: “All Judicial and Executive Magistrates other than Special Judicial and Special Executive Magistrates have the powers hereinafter respectively conferred upon them and specified in the third schedule. Such powers are called their “ordinary powers.” Section 15 of the amendment Act substituted a new section for section 37 of the principal Act which reads as under: “37. (1) In addition to his ordinary powers, the State Government may invest any Magistrate with any of the powers as specified in the Fourth Schedule. (2) The State Government may authorise a District Magistrate to invest any Magistrate, subordinate to him with any of the powers specified, in Part -II of the Fourth Schedule.” After the amendment, under section 36, Criminal Procedure Code, the Judicial and Executive Magistrates other than Special Judicial and Special Executrae Magistrates are given ordinary powers by the Act and those powers are specified in the Schedule III. Further, under section 37, Criminal Procedure Code, the State Government may invest any Magistrate with additional powers as specified in the Schedule IV in addition to their ordinary powers. Further, under section 37, Criminal Procedure Code, the State Government may invest any Magistrate with additional powers as specified in the Schedule IV in addition to their ordinary powers. Section 64 of the amendment Act amends Schedule III to the Principal Act-Section 64 (b) (ii) omits items (4) (5) and (6-a) in Part III of Schedule III. These four items under the principal Act related to the ordinary powers of the Magistrate of the First Class. Item (4) listed in Part III of Schedule III of the Principal Act related to power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. After the amendment, the ordinary powers of the First Class Magistrate to deal with security proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, have been taken away. Therefore, the Magistrate of the First Class who is a Judicial Magistrate can no longer exrercise the power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, as his ordinary power. Further section 64 (c) of the amendment Act inserts Part III-A to the Schedule III which deals with the ordinary powers of a Taluka Magistrate. Part III-A reads as under: “(1) Power to arrest or direct the arrest, of and to commit to custody, a person committing an offence in his presence, section 64. (2) Power to arrest, or direct the arrest in his presence, of an offender, section 65. (3) Power to endorse a warrant, or, to order removal of an accused person arrested under a warrant, sections 83, 84: and 86. (4) Power to require search to be made for letters and telegrams, section 95. (5) Power to issue search warrant, section 96. (6) Power to endorse a search warrant and order delivery of things found, section 99. (7) Power to command unlawful assembly to disperse, section 127. (8) Power to use civil force to disperse unlawful assembly, section 128. (9) Power to require military force to be used to disperse unlawful assembly, section 130. (10) Power to authorise detention of a person during police investigation, section 167. (11) Power to recover penalty on forfeited bond, section 514; and to require fresh security, section 514-A. (12) Power to make order as to disposal of property, section 517. (9) Power to require military force to be used to disperse unlawful assembly, section 130. (10) Power to authorise detention of a person during police investigation, section 167. (11) Power to recover penalty on forfeited bond, section 514; and to require fresh security, section 514-A. (12) Power to make order as to disposal of property, section 517. (13) Power to sell perishable property, section 525.” It is seen from Part III-A that power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, is not included therein as the ordinary power of a Taluk Magistrate. Section 64 (d) amends Part IV of the principal Act which listed the ordinary powers of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Section 64 (d) of the Amendment Act inserts items (2a) to (2e) after item (2) in Part IV of Schedule III of the principal Act. After the amendment, item (2c) in Part IV of Schedule III of the principal Act confers the Sub-Divisional Magistrate with power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. This, it is seen that the ordinary power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, which was conferred upon the Magistrates of the First Glass in the principal Act has now been conferred as the ordinary power of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after the insertion of item (2c) in Part IV of Schedule III of the Principal Act. Therefore the Magistrate of the First Class cannot exercise to power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, as his ordinary power. From the foregoing, it is clear that neither the Magistrate of the First Class nor the Taluka Magistrate can exercise the power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, as their ordinary power under the amended Schedule III of the principal Act. The learned Sessions Judge has fallen into error in reading item (2c) which is inserted in Part IV of Schedule III as coming under Part III-A which ends with item 13. Amendment to Part IV of Schedule III inserting item (2c) begins with section 64 (d) of the amendment Act. Now, turning to Schedule IV, the amendment Act has substituted a new Schedule for Schedule IV of the principal Act. Amendment to Part IV of Schedule III inserting item (2c) begins with section 64 (d) of the amendment Act. Now, turning to Schedule IV, the amendment Act has substituted a new Schedule for Schedule IV of the principal Act. This schedule deals with the additional powers with which the Magistrates may be invested by the State Government. It may be relevant to quote the items listed in Part I sub-part I and Sub-Part IV of Schedule IV which deals with the additional powers with which a Magistrate of the First Class and the Taluk Magistrate may be invested by the State Government: “PART I Additional powers with which Magistrate may be invested. By the State Government. I. Powers with which a Magistrate of the First Glass may be invested: - (1) Power to require security to keep the peace, section 107. (2) Power to require security for good behaviour, section 108. (3) Power to require security for good behaviour, section 109. (4) Power to require security for good behaviour, section 110. (5) Power to make orders as to local nuisances, section 133. (6) Power to make orders prohibiting repetition of nuisances, section 143. (7) Power to try summarily, section 260. (8) Power to pass sentence on proceedings recorded by a Magistrate of the Second Class or Thid Class, section 349. (9) Power to try cases under section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code. II. * * * * * III. * * * * * IV. Powers with which a Taluk Magistrate may be invested: - 1. Powers to make orders prohibiting repetitions of nuisances, section 143. 2. Power to make orders under section 144. 3. Power to record statements and confessions during a police investigation section 164. 4. Power to hold inquests, section 174. 5. Power to sell property alleged or suspected to have been stolen, etc., section 524.” Sub-Part I of Part I of Schedule IV empowers the State Government to invest the Magistrate of the First Glass who is a Judicial Magistrate with additional power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. Section 22 of the amendment Act substitutes in sub-section (1) of section 107 of the principal Act, the words “Magistrate of the First Glass specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf” for the words “Magistrate of the First Class”. Section 22 of the amendment Act substitutes in sub-section (1) of section 107 of the principal Act, the words “Magistrate of the First Glass specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf” for the words “Magistrate of the First Class”. From the above it is seen that the Magistrate of the First Glass gets the power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, as an additional power under the amended Schedule IV and that he must be invested with the said power by the State Government as required under the amended section 107 of the principal Act. This is made clear by the words “specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf” substituted by the amendment Act. It is therefore clear that before the amendment, the power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, was the ordinary power of the Magistrate of the First Glass under Part III of Schedule III; but, after the amendment, the new Schedule IV in Part I; Sub-Part I, item (1), the power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, is listed as an additional power to be invested by the State Government to the Magistrate of the First Class. A Magistrate of the First Glass who is invested with additional powers by the State Government can entertain proceedings under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. Further, in Sub-Part IV of Part I of Schedule IV, the additional powers with which a Taluka Magistrate may be invested have been listed. The power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, is not one of the powers listed therein. Therefore, as stated earlier, the Taluka Magistrate has no power either under the ordinary powers falling within the list in Part III-A of Schedule III or under the additional power under Sub-Part IV of Part I of Schedule IV to require security to keep the peace under section 107,Crimiral Procedure Code. From the above it is clear that the learned Sessions Judge’s conclusion that there is conflict between the provisions contained in section 107,Criminal Procedure Code, and Part III-A of Schedule III, is not correct and that there really exists no such conflict between the powers listed in either Part III-A of Schedule III or sub-Part IV of Part I of Schedule IV. Further, as seen above, the Taluka Magistrate is not conferred with power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, as his ordinary power. Nor the State Government has the power to invest him with power to require security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, as an additional power. This power can be exercised by the Magistrate of the First Class only when he is invested with the same by the State Government. For the reasons stated above, the Taluka Magistrate (Tahsildar-Magistrate) Bangalore North Taluk has no jurisdiction to entertain security proceedings contemplated under section 107,Criminal Procedure Code, and, therefore, he is not competent to pass an order requiring security to keep the peace under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the impugned, orders are invalid and are not sustainable in law. Orders under revision are quashed. Bonds if any executed by the petitioners shall stand cancelled. The question whether the impugned order passed by the Taluka Magistrate under section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code, without issuing the preliminary notice under section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, does not survive for consideration in view of what has been stated above. The learned State Prosecutor while addressing arguments brought to may notice that number of Taluka Magistrates have been exercising powers Under section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, perhaps erroneously reading section 2 (c) of section 64 (d) of the Amendment Act as coming under Part III-A of Schedule III. This is really a serious matter. There is likelihood of a reader committing an error in reading section 2 (c) which is inserted in Part IV of Schedule III as coming under Part III-A which ends with Item 13 since section 64- (d) of the Amendment Act amending certain items in Part IV of Schedule III have not been printed in bold letters as Part III-A is printed in the publication printed and published at the Government Press in 1965. It is high time that the State Government should get the Principal Act (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898) printed and published incorporating the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1965, and make the copies available to those who are in charge of law and order and administration of Criminal justice. It is high time that the State Government should get the Principal Act (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898) printed and published incorporating the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Mysore Amendment) Act, 1965, and make the copies available to those who are in charge of law and order and administration of Criminal justice. Send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mysore to take such action as the Government may deem fit. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed. S.V.S. ----- Petitions allowed.