D. C. SRIVASTAVAD, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Ms. Avani Mehta, learned Counsel for the revisionist on admission of this revision. The admission of revision is opposed by Shri Y. S. Lakhani appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. Shri K. C. Shah, learned A. P. P. , appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 has also been heard.

( 2 ) THE order dated July 12, 2000 of the learned Sessions Judge, Surendranagar is under challenge in this revision. By the impugned order, the learned Sessions judge has set aside the order of the learned Executive Magistrate passed in proceedings under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on May 16, 2000.

( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and examining the judgments under revision, it can be safely said that the order of the learned executive Magistrate was not in accordance with law, and as such, it could be set aside by the Sessions Judge in revision.

( 4 ) THE first infirmity in the order of the learned Executive Magistrate is that, he did not pass any preliminary order as contemplated under Sec. 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The impugned order shows that, for all purposes, it is an order under Sec. 146 (1) of the Code of Crimi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document