Sharma, J.—This is an application by Ram Chandra and three others of village Sakat Tehsil Rajgarh to revise the order of Shri Naina Nand Jain, Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The opposite party Bharion Baksh (here-in-after to be referred to as the complainant) filed an application under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he secured from Tehsil Rajgarh a decree for possession of land No. 1875/314 on the 7th of April, 1949 and was put in possession of the same on the 23rd April, I949, Thereafter he gave the land on Batai to Raghu-nath and Gangli. When they went on the 18th of July, 1949 to plough the land, they were driven out by Ram Chandra and others (hereinafter to be referred to as the applicants) by threat and show of force. It was, therefore, prayed the land might be taken in possession of the Court and the applicants be bound to keep the peace and possession might then be restored to the complainant. The matter was referred to police, who reported on 22nd July, 1949, that the applicants were in possession and there was no imminent danger of peace. On the 25th October, 1949, the Learned Magistrate to whom the case came after having wandered through some other courts made the following order on 25th October, 1949.

"Prima facie, there is apprehension of an offence to the petitioner. Therefore, a notice be issued to the opposite party under sec. 145 (3) to show cause why they should not be called upon to furnish surety in the sum of Rs. 500/- and execute personal bonds in the like sum to keep the peace for a period of one year. The opposite party should personally attend the court on 8th November 1949 and file whatever objections they have."

3. It would thus appear that although in the order, sec. 145 (3) is mentioned yet it is in reality an order under sec. 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate upon this order and after notice to the parties finally made an order that the complainant was in possession of the property and his possession be maintained over it till ejected in due course of law.

4. Against the above order, the applicants went in revision to the court of the Sessions Judge, Alwar, but their revision has been dismissed. They have come in revision to this court.

5. The order of the learned Magistrate has been attacked mainly on two grounds (1) That he did not make any preliminary order as required by sec. 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such an order should state the grounds of the Magistrates being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace, exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof within the local limits of his jurisdiction and should require the parties concerned in such dispute, to attend the Magistrates court in person or by pleader within a time to be fixed by the Magistrate to put any written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. (2) That the Magistrate without finding that the complainant was in possession of the property in dispute within two months next before the date of the preliminary order has ordered that the possession of the complainant be maintained.

6. The learned counsel for the applicants has argued that a preliminary order in terms of sec. 145 (1) is imperative to give the court jurisdiction under the said section. Unless such an order is made all the proceedings are void. He has relied upon A.I.R. 1945 Oudh P. 62 Bisram vs. Kamta Prashad and others and A.I.R. 1938 Rangoon P. 229 Dr. A. Meah vs. Steel Brothers and €0. Ltd: In the Oudh ruling, it was held that sec. 145 (1) requires the Magistrate to make an order in writing stating the grounds of his being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace exists. Omission by the Magistrate to state the grounds of his being satisfied as to the existence of the apprehension of the breach of peace vitiates subsequent proceedings. In the Ran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document