1. Two points have been taken in this revision namely that in this case a prior Magistrate who passed a preliminary order did not take interim bonds though the police pressed for them and secondly that the new Magistrate had issued another preliminary order containing some more incidents against the very same counter-petitioners and on an application by the police has passed an order directing the petitioners herein to execute interim bonds for keeping the peace (Section 117 (3), Criminal Procedure Code). It is argued that these twin acts were without jurisdiction and against law.
2. These contentions are devoid of merits. It is open to the second Magistrate after fresh incidents come to his knowledge to issue a second order either by way of amendment or as supplementary order because in the actual enquiry which takes place the petitioners herein must have full knowledge of all the information against them, the preliminary order corresponds to a charge on a warrant case and must be able to meet it and the prosecution must not spring any surprise on them. Therefore, the second preliminary order including other additional incidents though against the same counter-petitioners (petitioners herein) has rightly been issued in this case.' (Ahmed Baksh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1916 Lah. 295 Emperor v. Rasulbux A.I.R. 1942 Sind 122. Hyder Khan v. Emperor 1933 M.W.N. 351 Norn Sahib Khan v. Emperor A.I.R. 1933 Sind 8 Srinivasalu Reddiar v. Emperor : (1941)2MLJ1036 . In regard to the taking of interim bonds, the Magistrate who is responsible for maintaining peace in his locality is the proper Judge of what should be done in the exigencies and circumstances of the case rendering immediate measures necessary for preventing a breach of the peace, etc., and the High Court will not ordinarily interfere in revision unless it is shown that the order is manifestly perverse and that there were no grounds at all for passing such an order and that a failure of justice has resulted (In re Muthuswami Chettiar : (1940)1MLJ11 . In re Kavathan Pattu Raju) A.I.R. 1920 Mad. 1014. This cannot be stated to be the case here. The Magistrate has directed his consideration to the question of emergency given his reasons and has not passed this order without care and prudence as a routine order and hence his order is irreproachable : Emperor v. Sumar A.I.R. 1940 Sind 175. Bachlal Sama Mowhreye v. Emperor A.I.R. 1942 Sind 77 Emperor v. Make Bux A.I.R. 1942 Sind 86 Emperor v. Gulam Mohammed A.I.R. 1943 Sind 122 Emperor v. Muhammad Rahim A.I.R. 1943 Sind 173.
3. In these circumstances, both the points taken fail. In dismissing this application I am comforted by the thought that the main enquiry itself must have been completed already. If not it is enjoined upon the Magistrate to expeditiously dispose of the main proceedings.