I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This petition, made under Section 482, Cr. P.C. (in short, 'the Code'), has raised a very important question of law and the question is this : Is an order passed by an Executive Magistrate drawing proceeding, under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 of the Code, revisable? This question, in turn, brings us to yet another question and the question is : Whether an order, passed, under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, an interlocutory order?

2. Before making endeavour to find answers to the questions posed above, appropriate it is that the facts leading to this petition are taken note of. The petitioner herein submitted, as first party, a petition to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup Metropolitan District, alleging, inter alia, thus : The petitioner is the lawful owner and possessor of the land described in the schedule to the said petition, which is hereinafter referred to as the 'disputed land.' The second party, who has no right, title or interest over the disputed land, broke the boundary wall standing on the land and tried to encroach upon and occupy the disputed land. The dispute between the parties has given rise to serious apprehension of breach of the peace and tranquillity. Based on this petition, which was supported by an affidavit, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup Metropolitan District, passed an order, on 22-8-2007, drawing a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code in respect of the disputed land involving the parties aforementioned. Case No. 242(M)/2007 accordingly came into existence. By the same order, i.e., the order, dated 22-8-2007. aforementioned, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate also directed attachment of the disputed land excluding the dwelling house standing thereon. Aggrieved by the order, dated 22-8-2007, and challenging the same on grounds, inter alia, that the very assumption of jurisdiction, under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was illegal, the second party to the said proceeding (i.e., the opposite party No. 1 herein) filed a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code. This revision came to be registered as Criminal Revision No. 14/2007 and an order was passed therein, on 24-8-2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) No. 4, Kamrup, Guwahati, admitting the revision and staying operation of the order, dated 22-8-2007, aforementioned.

3. Contending, now, that the very entertaining of the revision petition by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction, the petitioner has impugned, in this petition, made under Section 482 of the Code, the order, dated 24-8-2007, aforementioned.

4. I have heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. A. B. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1. I have also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, who has appeared on behalf of the State.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Sikdar that the drawing of a proceeding, under Section 145 of the Code, is an interlocutory order and such an order, being interlocutory in nature, is not revisable. Considered thus, contends Mr. Sikdar, the order, dated 22-8-2007, aforementioned, whereby proceeding under Section 145 was drawn, is an interlocutory order and that such an order is, in the light of the provisions of Section 397 of the Code, not revisable and, hence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed serious error of law in entertaining the revision and in staying the proceeding.

6. Resisting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, contends that an order, under Sub-section (1) of Section 145, is not an interlocutory order, for, exercise of jurisdiction by a Magistrate, when he has no jurisdiction at all to draw such a proceeding, cannot be treated as an interlocutory order. It is also contended by Mr. Choudhury that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Executi