Kanhaiyaji, J.

1. This case is typical of the cases which generally come up to this court under Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) owing to the neglect of the Magistracy to observe the procedure prescribed by Sec.139A of the Code. The section requires that when a person on whom conditional notice under Sec.133 of the Code has been served appears in response to that notice and denies the existence of any public right in a way, river, channel or place alleged to have been obstructed, the Magistrate shall enquire into the matter and if in course of such enquiry, the Magistrate finds that there is any reliable evidence in support of the denial, he is bound to stay the proceeding until the existence of the right has been decided by a competent civil court. If, on the other hand, he finds that there is no such reliable evidence he is required to proceed in the manner prescribed by Section 137 or Sec.138 of the Code.

2. In the present case, the opposite party filed an application before the Subdivisional Magistrate, complaining obstruction by cutting the Rashta appearing between survey plots Nos. 5313 and 5321 in the north and 5312 and 5