The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence and investigation before issuing injunctions under Section 144, Cr. P. C., and the importance of ascertaining the true facts of the case before making such orders.

( 1 ) THESE are two petns. for revn. of orders mode by a learned Mag. under Section 144, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) THE opposite parties presented petns. to the Dist. Mag. complaining that the present petrs. in these cases were interfering with their possession. It seems that these petns. wore not even verified but the Dist. Mag. immediately issued an order in these terms :"the usurping party may please be restrained immediately under Sections 144, 107, Cr. P. C. and asked to come through Civil Court and the party in possession may be allowed to continue in possession. "

( 3 ) STRANGE to say, this order is in terms addressed to the Supdt. of Police. The latter on receiving this order also made an order in these terms : "s. D. O. will please issue order as directed and send to O. C. Harishchandrapur P. S. to take immediate steps. "

( 4 ) PRESUMABLY the learned Dist. Mag. was acting under the second para, of Sub-section (1) of Section 144 which provides :"such Mag. any, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in manner provided by Section 134 direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with certain property in possession or under his management if such Mag. considers that such direction is likely to prevent or tends to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquillity or a riot, or an affray. "

( 5 ) IT is clear that the order must be served in the manner provided by Section 134, Cr. P. C. and there is nothing in Section 144 which authorises the learned Dist. Mag. to address an order to the Supdt. of Police. Sub-section (3) of Section 144 provides that an order under that section may be directed to a particular individual, or to the public generally. There is nothing to suggest that it is an order directed to the head of the police in the district.

( 6 ) WHAT happened afterwards is stranger still. The Supdt. of Police took it upon himself to issue an order to the Sub-Divisional Mag. , although I do not think it would be conceded for a moment that a Mag. is under the orders of a Supdt. of Police. But apparently such is the case in the Malda district.

( 7 ) THE matter eventually came before the Sub-Divisional Officer and he on 8-11-1948 made this order:"issue order under Section 144, Cr. P. C. restraining the 2nd party from entering upon the disputed land. Send the order by Special Messenger to O. /c Harishchandrapur for service and return by 22-11-48. Notice also 1st party. "

( 8 ) IT will be seen that in both the orders of the learned Dist. Mag. and the Sub-Divisional Mag. it is assumed that the opposite parties before us were in possession and it is assumed that their possession was being disturbed by the present petnrs. , though, as I have said the petns. made to the Dist. Mag. were not even verified and he took no evidence of any kind. How these orders could be passed in those circumstances I am wholly unable to say, and it appears to me there was no material at all before the Cts. upon which they could hold or assume that the present petnrs. were ousting the present opposite parties who were lawfully in possession.

( 9 ) THE present petnrs. filed written-statements in which they pleaded that the lands in question had been held as chakran lands by a person long since dead. They alleged that the chakran lands had been resumed by the petnrs. and further that the present opposite parties had no connection whatsoever with the deceased chakran tenant.

( 10 ) IT seems that the Sub-Divisional Officer took no evidence and in a very short order disposed of the matter. The order begins by stating that the first party is the recorded chakran tenant of the opposite parties.

( 11 ) IT is contended that that is a mis-statement and that the record of rights shows that the chakran tenant was one Chetru Sardar who is dead.