K.B.N. Singh, J.

1. This application in revision has been flied for setting aside an order dated the 6th June, 1972, of the Magistrate, First Class, Dinapore, directing the petitioners to execute an interim bond of Rs. 1500/- (corrected vide order no. 12 dated 7.12.1973, Sd/ U.N, Dutta, 7.12.1973) each with two sureties of the like amount, for maintaining peace during the pendency of a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The petitioners were the second party and the opposite party the first party in that proceeding.

2. On the 19th February, 1972, the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Danapur drew up a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioners on the basis of a police report that there was a serious apprehension of a breach of the peace at the hands of the petitioners. In pursuance of the notice to show cause, the petitioners appeared on the 17th March, 1972 and prayed for time for filing their show cause, and the case was adjourned to the 28th March, 1972 for filing their show cause. On that very day, the opposite party filed a petition praying for directing the petitioners to execute interim bonds, which was referred to the Bikram police for inquiry and report. On the 28th March, 1972, the petitioners filed their show cause. Thereafter, on two dates (i.e., on the 22nd April, 1972, & the 17th May, 1972) nothing substantial seems to have been done in the proceeding, on account of absence of one or the other of the petitioners. On the 26th May, 1972, the petitioners appeared and the police report recommending for an action under Section 117 (3) of the Code against the petitioners was also received. The police reported that the petitioners aggressive attitude had crossed all limits and the allegation of the opposite party that there was danger to their lives at the instance of the petitioners was correct. After hearing the parties and considering the police report, the impugned order was passed.

3. Shree Ram Suresh Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has urged that the learned Magistrate has acted illegally in postponing the inquiry under Section 117 (i) of the Code and in the meantime asking the petitioners to execute interim bonds. He has urged that the inquiry under Section 117 (1) of the Code will be deemed to commence only when witnesses are examined and the learned Magistrate could not ask the petitioners to execute interim bonds without ascertaining the truth of the allegation, by examining the persons making the allegation or the police officer, and reliance in this connection is placed on the case of Madhu Limaye vs. Ved Murti and others A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2481. It has been submitted that the decision of a Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. The State of Bihar A.I.R. 1957 Pat. 106 stands overruled as a result of the above Supreme Court decision.

4. Learned Counsel has submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye's case will fully apply to the facts of the present case in as much as after the petitioners appeared and filed their show cause, the learned Magistrate adjourned the proceeding on two dates and instead of concluding the proceeding he has taken the harsh step of asking the petitioners to execute interim bonds on the 6th June, 1972. He has placed reliance on the observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the judgment, which read thus:

"13. It will be noticed that before the Magistrate took action to call for an interim bond, he did not make any efforts to enquire into the truth of the information as is required by Section 117 (3) of the Code. He only saw the Police report and was satisfied from it, without even questioning the Sub Inspector. He did question him with regard to Narender Shastri who is described in the Order as O.P. No.3, but not others. It is also to be noticed that the case was fixed on the following day for statemen