The Magistrate has the power to attach the property in case of emergency under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. without holding an enquiry, and his jurisdiction does not cease upon passing the order of attachment.

( 1 ) THIS petition is filed by the Second Party in Misc. Case No. H/19/81 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad (East), to revise the orders of the Magistrate passed under Sections 145 (1) and 146, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) ON 12/05/1981, the Circle Inspector of Police, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy district, placed information before the Magistrate that there was land dispute between the first party and the second party in respect of survey number 9/1 of Saroornagar village admeasuring 45 acres, that each party was claiming to be in possession of the land, that there were also criminal cases between the parties, that each party was trying to dispossess the other by indulging in violent activities and thus, there was every likelihood of breach of peace and public tranquillity, that the police were unable to control the situation even after posting police picket, and it was necessary that the disputed land be taken into the custody of the Court and action might be taken against both the parties. The Magistrate received the information on 13/05/1981. He recorded the sworn statement of the Circle Inspector of Police on the same date. On the same date, after perusing the report and the sworn statement, the Magistrate endorsed on the report that he was satisfied that there was every likelihood of breach of peace on the land and hence directed issue of orders under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. to both the parties. He also directed attachment of the lands under Section 146 Cr. P. C. On 19/05/1981 the Magistrate issued the preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. against both the parties calling upon them to attend his Court on 15/06/1981 to put in written statements of their respective claims. On the same date, he also issued orders attaching the property in dispute under Section 146 Cr. P. C. Questioning his two orders, the second party (M. S. Rahaman) has filed this revision.

( 3 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date when the order of attachment was made under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. , there was no preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. and, therefore, the order under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. is without jurisdiction. This contention is patently incorrect. A perusal of the records show that, first, the Magistrate passed an order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. and thereafter under Section 146 Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) IT is also submitted that both the orders could not be made simultaneously. In the first instance, this assumption is wrong. The first order was made under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. , and then the order under Section 146 Cr. P. C. was made. It is not necessary that there should be any time-lag between both the orders. (See V. K. Rao v. Chandappa. (1977) 79 Bom LR 16 ).

( 5 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. , does not show that any of the conditions mentioned therein existed. That sub-section reads as follows :-"146 (1 ). If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof : Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute. "

( 6 ) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate says that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists between the parties concerning the land. It is true that he did not say in his order that he considered the case to be one of emergency for atta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document