Koshi, J.

1A. This Criminal revision raises two questions regarding an order under S.113(3), Travancore Criminal P.C. One is whether the order was made prematurely or without jurisdiction in that it was passed before the order under S. 108 was read and explained to the persons sought to be proceeded against and the other is whether in substance or in form the order complies with the requirements of the sub-section.

2A. The records of the case which have been called for do not show that the preliminary order was read or explained to the present petitioner or to the other counter-petitioners in the case before the order under S.113(3) was passed. Decided cases show that the Court cannot pass an order under the said sub-section until after the enquiry is commenced as envisaged by sub-s. L See Criminal Proceedings No. 444 of 1122 dated 26.6.1122 of the High Court of Travancore in Criminal. Revision Petitions 112 and 126 to 134 of 1122 and the decisions in Emperor v. Sidik Ghulam Hyder Chandio (AIR 1943 Sind 163) and Emperor v. Yusuf Jumo (AIR 1943 Sind 175).

3A. As for the second point all that the Magistrate has said is that for the reasons stated in the police report dated 14th May 1950 he calls upon each of the counter-petitioners to execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 500 with two sureties that they would keep the peace until the conclusion of the inquiry. This blind acceptance of a Police Officer's report would seem not to satisfy the requirements of the sub-section. See job v. Kuruvilla (1949 TLR 41); Emperor v. Nabibux (1942 Sind 86) and Gagendra v. The King (AIR 1950 Cal. 200). In my opinion the order under revision would seem to call for interference.

4A. The present petition however is by the first counter-petitioner alone and there are as many as seven counter-petitioners in the case. Counter-petitioner 5 had moved this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 238 of 1950 and that was dismissed by my learned brother Govinda Pillai, J. by his order dated 12th October 1950 in these words "Heard both sides. No ground for interference. Dismissed."

5A. Out of deference for the view entertained by a brother judge regarding the very order now under revision I would instead of passing the final order on this revision myself, refer the matter to a Division Bench for decision and I order accordingly. The revision was filed out of time but in the circumstances of the case I thought it proper to allow the application for condoning the delay. An order to that effect has been passed by me this day of Criminal M.P. No. 554 of 1950.

ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH

Koshi, J.

1B. Counter-petitioner 1 in M.C. 20/1950 on the file of the Division First Class Magistrate, Alleppey has preferred this revision against an order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the counter-petitioners thereto to execute interim bonds for keeping the peace. Before the present petitioner filed this petition counter-petitioner 5 in the case had filed a similar application in Criminal Revision Petition No. 238/1950 and that was dismissed by my learned brother Govinda Pillai, J. sitting alone. Afterwards when this petition came up before me it was argued that the order under revision was open to exception in more ways than one. An unreported Division Bench ruling of the Travancore High Court in Criminal Proceedings No. 444 of 1122, dated 26.6.1122 as also a line of decisions of the Chief Court of Sind were cited in support of the revision. I then thought it proper to refer the petition to a Division Bench. That is how this revision happened to come up before a Division Bench.

2B. The grounds of attack directed against the order are two. They are (1) that the order was made prematurely or without jurisdiction in that it was passed before the order under S.108 was read or explained to the persons sought to be proceeded against and (2) that in form or substance the order does not satisfy the requirements of the relevant sub-section of S.113 namely sub-s. (3).

3B. The a