J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.S. Misra, counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the parties' counsel, this application is disposed of finally.
(2.) By means of this application, the applicants have challenged the validity of Impugned notice purporting to be under section 111 Cr.P.C. Learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection that the Impugned notice is only in the nature of show cause and, therefore this application at this stage is premature. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners urged before the Court that the applicants have challenged the validity of the Impugned notice on the ground that it does not fulfil the requirement of mandatory provisions of section 111 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the notice in question is null and void and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are a nullity. It cannot be disputed that an Executive Magistrate gets jurisdiction to proceed under section 110 Cr.P.C. only after passing an order as envisaged under section 111 Cr.P.C. If the order as contemplated under section 111 Cr.P.C. has not been passed,'the Magistrate cannot proceed in law.
(3.) A plain reading of this section would show that the order under section 111 Cr.P.C. must be in writing and it should contain the following elements: (1) substance of the information received under Section 107-110-Cr.P.C. (as the case may be); (2) that upon consideration of such information, the Magistrate has formed the opinion that there is likelihood of the breach of peace; (3) that it is necessary to proceed under relevant Sections 107 to 110 Cr.P.C. as the case may be; (4) that amount of the bond to be executed; (5) the term for which the bond is to remain in force; and (6) the character and class of sureties required.;