JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. On receiving the report of the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, under Section 110 of the CrPC in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarangarh, the special Court took cognizance of the matter and passed a preliminary order dated 21-2-2017 that preventive proceeding under Section 110 read with Section 116(3) of the CrPC deserves to be initiated against the petitioner requiring him to show cause under Section 111 of the CrPC as to why bond should not be executed by him for a period of one year, which the petitioner questioned unsuccessfully before the revisional court in revision leading to filing of this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. 2. Mr. Koshaley, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is only said to have committed offence under the Excise Act in the years 2001, 2010 and 2016, it would not attract Section 110 of the CrPC and the petitioner was unnecessarily arrested, therefore proceeding initiated under Section 111 of the CrPC and the subsequent proceeding deserves to be quashed. 3. Mr. Bhagat, learned State counsel, would support the revisional order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. It is true that as stated herein-above, on the istegasha filed by the Station House Officer under Section 110 of the CrPC, proceeding under Sections 110 & 116(3) of the CrPC has been initiated against the petitioner requiring him to furnish a bond for a period of one year. 5. It is true that as stated herein-above, on the istegasha filed by the Station House Officer under Section 110 of the CrPC, proceeding under Sections 110 & 116(3) of the CrPC has been initiated against the petitioner requiring him to furnish a bond for a period of one year. The preliminary order passed on 21-2-2017 states as under: - 21@02@2017 Fkkuk ÁHkkjh] lkjax<+ }kjk bZ’rxklk Øekad 11@2016 /kkjk 110 n.M ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ds rgr Ágykn iVsy vk0 Vsaxuw iVsy mez 42 o”kZ lkfdu dsMkj Fkkuk lkjax< ftyk&jkx<+ ¼N0x0½ ds fo:/n bl U;k;ky; esa ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gS A 2& Fkkuk ÁHkkjh] lkjax< }kjk ÁLrqr bZ’rxklk esa crk;k x;k gS fd vukosnd ?kVuk fnukad dks ?kVuk LFky Fkkuk lkjax< {ks= esa o”kZ 16-12-2013 ds iwoZ ls yxkrkj vijk/k ?kfVr djrs vk jgs gSa] ftlds fo:/n o”kZ 2001 esa Hkk-na-fo- dk Ádj.k ?kfVr fd;k gS A o”kZ 2010 esa vkcdkjh ,DV dk 02 Ádj.k iathc/n fd;k x;k gS A vukosnd voS/k :i ls ‘kjkc fcØh djus dk dke dj jgk gS A vukosnd ds d`R; ls tukØks’k gS A vukosnd ds vkijkf/kd d`R; ij vadq’k yxkus ds fy, rFkk vke turk ds e/; veu peu dk;e j[kus gsrq Áfrcaf/kr djus ds vykok vU; dksbZ fodYi ugha gksus ls /kkjk 110 tk-QkS- dk bZ’rxklk rS;kj fd;k x;k tks vf/kd ls vf/kd jkf’k ls Áfrcaf/kr djus gsrq bl U;k;ky; esa is’k fd;k x;k gS A 3& Fkkuk ÁHkkjh }kjk ÁLrqr vfHkys[kksa ls eq>s larqf”V gksrh gS fd vukosnd }kjk ,slk djuk nq%lkgfld vkSj Hk;adj gS fd mldk ÁfrHkwfr fd fcuk LoPNan jguk lekt ds fy, ifjladVe; gS rFkk esjs jk; ls vukosnd ds fo:/n dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, i;kZIr vk/kkj gS A vr% vukosnd ds fo:/n 110] 116 ¼3½ ds rgr Áfrca/kkRed dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk vko’;d gS A 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 110 of the CrPC which states as under: - "110. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 110 of the CrPC which states as under: - "110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders.-When an Executive Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who- (a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or (b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or (c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or (d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under section 489A, section 489B, section 489C or section 489D of that Code, or (e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving a breach of the peace, or (f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of- (i) any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:- (a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940); (b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973); (c) the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952); (d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954); (e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955); (f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); (g) the Customs Act, 1962 or (52 of 1962); (h) the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946); or (ii) any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or (g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit." 7. A careful perusal of the above-stated list enumerated in Section 110 of the CrPC would show that the offences, if any, committed under the Excise Act, has not been included in Section 110 of the CrPC, but the preliminary order has been passed under Section 110 of the CrPC that the petitioner is involved in the commission of offences under the Excise Act. In the considered opinion of this Court, the provisions of Section 110 of the CrPC have to be construed strictly and unless the petitioner is said to have committed the offences as enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 110 of the CrPC, no proceeding under Sections 110 and 116(3) of the CrPC can be initiated against him and he cannot be directed to furnish bail bonds under Section 111 of the CrPC. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed preliminary order under Section 110 of the CrPC which is illegal and bad in law and the revisional court has perpetuated the illegality in according the affirmation of that order. In the considered opinion of this Court, the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarangarh and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh i.e. the revisional Court without holding that the alleged offence which the petitioner is said to have committed comes under Section 110 of the CrPC, are unsustainable and bad in law. Accordingly, the order dated 21-2-2017 as well as the order of the revisional Court are quashed. 8. Learned State counsel submits that the proceeding has already been closed. 9. The fact remains that the entire proceeding was without jurisdiction and without authority of law, therefore, subsequent closure of the proceeding would have no effect. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed of.