SARWAR ALI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the writ application praying for quashing of the order contained in Annexure-"2" to the writ application, whereby the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kishanpur Camp, in the district of Darbhanga (respondent No. 1), has held the petitioner liable to be dealt with under Sec. 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and has sentenced him to pay a fine of rupees fifteen or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days, under Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also filed an application in revision directed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, passed in Criminal Revision No. 166 of 1971. As the questions involved in the two cases are, more or less, connected, they have been heard together with the consent of the parties end are being disposed of by this common judgement.

2. The facts giving rise to the writ application may be briefly stated thus : At the relevant time revisional survey operations were going on in village Balahi, P.S. Warianagar, in the District of Darbhanga. The wife of the petitioner owns some land in that village. The respondent Assistant Settlement Officer, being a Revenue Officer appointed under the Bihar Tenancy Act, was holding camp at Kishanpur, where he was hearing tanasas filed in respect of survey operations that had taken place. One of the disputes raised before the Assistant Settlement Officer related to lands which the wife of the petitioner claimed to be her raiyati land. The 29th of May, 1970, was a date fixed for disposal of the objections raised by some persons in relation to the survey operations. The Assistant Settlement Officer was, therefore, it is accepted, acting under Sec.103-A of the Bihar Tenancy Act

3. On the 29th May, 1970, it is alleged that the petitioner acted in such a manner as to attract the provisions of Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Settlement Officer, being of the view that he had power under Sec. 480 of the Code to proceed in the matter and to deal with the petitioner, who had committed contempt in the view or presence of a "Revenue Court", proceeded to draw up a proceeding against the petitioner. After examination of the petitioner, the respondent Assistant Settlement Officer passed the impugned order holding that the petitioner was guilty of an offence punishable under Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions; but it would be necessary to deal with only one of the contentions as, in my view, the writ application can be disposed of on consideration and decision of that question. Learned counsel contended that the power under Sec. 480 of the Code to deal with contempt can only be available to an Assistant Settlement Officer provided he was a Revenue Court within the meaning of Sec. 480 of the Code. In his contention, since the respondent Assistant Settlement Officer was not a Revenue Court, no action could be taken under Sec. 480 of the Code.

5. It would be necessary to quote Sec. 480 of the Code as also Sec. 481. They are as follows :-

"480. When any such offence as is described in Sec.175, Sec.178. Sec.179, Sec.180, or Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of any Civil. Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody; and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid.

481(1) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence.

(2) If the offence is under Sec.228 of the Indian Penal Code, the record shall show the nature and stage of the