The Magistrate has jurisdiction to take interim measures, such as requiring interim security under S. 117(3), Cr. P.C., even if an application for transfer of the case is pending under S. 526(8). An order under S. 117(3) is not dependent on an enquiry under S. 117(1) and can be passed without holding an enquiry.

ORDER :- The petitioners, nine in number, were called upon by the Joint Magistrate of Negapattinam to show cause why they should not be directed to furnish security under S. 107, Cr. P.C. for keeping the peace for a period of six months.

2. In response to the notice issued to them, the petitioners appeared before the learned Magistrate and submitted that one of the instances which had been referred to in the preliminary order under S. 112, Cr. P.C. formed the subject- matter of P.R.C. No. 3 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Negapattinam and prayed for an adjournment of the security case till the disposal of P.R.C. No. 3 of 1955. This request for an adjournment was refused.

Thereupon, the first petitioner filed an application under S. 526(8), Criminal P.C. intimating the learned Magistrate that he intended to move this Court for the transfer of the case from his file and asking for an adjournment on that ground. Accordingly the Joint Magistrate adjourned the case to 14-3-1955. Immediately thereafter the Sub-Inspector of Police presented a report to the learned Magistrate praying that, in the circumstances set out in it, interim security may be taken from the petitioners. The Joint Magistrate then passed an order in the course of which he observed :

"Information has been laid before me that the situation in Pudupattur village remains tense and that the counter-petitioners continue to adopt peace. Since the filling of the charge-sheet in this case, a few more incidents have been reported and counter-petitioners are reported to be garthering men from all sides to intimidate persons in the village from giving evidence against them."

For these reason he thought that it was necessary to obtain interim security from the petitioners and accordingly he made an order under S. 117(3), Cr. P.C., requiring them to execute bonds in a sum of Rs. 300, each with one surety for each in a like amount, each for keeping the peace for a period of six months or till the disposal of the case whichever was shorter. The present petition has been filed to revise this order of the learned Magistrate.

3. Mr. Kailasam, the learned advocate for the petitioners raised two points. The first was that S. 526(8), Cr. P.C. imposes a statutory duty on the Magistrate to adjourn the case when an application under that section is made and that after having so adjourned the case he had no jurisdiction whatever to take any step in the case. I do not think this argument is sound. Section 526(8), Criminal P.C. no doubt requires the Magistrate to adjourn the particular case before him, but it does not deprive him of jurisdiction to take, what may be described as ancillary or interim measures.

It will be appreciated that if the contention of Mr. Kailasam, were sound, serious consequences, prejudicial to the public peace may follow. Persons who are determined to break the peace and against whom proceedings are being taken may file an application under S. 526(8) and after having thus effectively tied up the hands of the Magistrate, utilise the time occupied by the pendency of the transfer petition to commit with impunity wrongful acts, likely to create a breach of the peace. Nor do the terms of the section require such a construction.

Section 526(8) of the Code begins : "If in, any inquiry under Chap. VIII etc." Proceedings requiring a person to furnish security under S. 107 of the Code no doubt constitute an enquiry within the meaning of Chap. VIII. But a proceeding under S. 117(3) does not require any enquiry to be held at all. In fact, the section begins "Pending the completion, of the enquiry under Sub-S. (1)......" These words make it clear that an order under S. 117(3) is in the nature of an interim order and that no enquiry need be involved in it.

No doubt, it will be open to the Magistrate to make an enquiry if he so desires but he is not bound to do so and that must be so for an obvious reason. The circumstances which make a Magistrate consider that inter