The limitation on revisional powers in case of findings given under Section 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code aims to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting revisional orders.

ORDER : These are two connected revisions preferred against the orders made by the learned Ex-Officio First Class Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, in M. C. Nos. 36 of 1957 and 2 of 1958 and the opinion of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in C. M. P. 2 of 1958.

2. The facts are short: There has been a land dispute regarding possession between Rengammal and Rama Subbaraya Reddiar. The Ex-officio First Class Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi on account of the complicated questions of law, which arose, proceeded under S. 146(1) Crl. P. C. This section has been newly introduced and states that if the magistrate is of opinion that none of the parties was then in such possession, or is unable to decide as to which of them was then in such possession, of the subject of dispute, he may attach it and draw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the record of the proceeding to a civil court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute at the date of the order as explained in sub-s. (4) of S. 145, and he shall direct the parties to appear before the civil court on a date to be fixed by him.

In this case that procedure was adopted and the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli on receipt of the reference perused the evidence on record and took further evidence produced by the parties respectively, considered the effect of all such evidence, and decided the question of possession so referred to it. The learned Subordinate Judge has sent his findings to the magistrate. The magistrate on receipt of these proceedings has disposed of the matter under S. 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil court. That decision was that the counter petitioner was in possession of the lands in dispute on the relevant date and which conclusion was on a consideration of all the circumstances of the case and after preferring the affidavits filed on behalf of the counter petitioner to those of the petitioner.

3. Two applications are now preferred, first against the order of the magistrate dismissing the petition and secondly against the opinion of the learned Subordinate Judge transmitted to the magistrate and in conformity of which the magistrate has decided the case.

4. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the revision petitioner has no case. On acceptable and relevant evidence it has been found that the counter petitioner was in possession of the lands in dispute on the relevant date prescribed under Ss. 145 and 146 Crl. P. C. This finding is of course subject to adjudication in the civil court. I am unable to see how the conclusion set out can be held to be not in accordance with the evidence in the case. Therefore, the dismissal of the petition was quite proper.

5. In regard to the revision which is sought to be preferred against the proceedings of the learned Subordinate Judge, one has only to look at S. 146(1)(d), which lays down that no appeal shall lie from any finding of the civil court given on a reference under this section nor shall any review or revision of any such finding be allowed. In other words, the Parliament in the exercise of its undoubted and unquestionable powers has limited the revisional powers of this court to this extent, viz., that in case of findings given under S. 146 Crl. P. C. no revision shall lie and has thereby provided against mischievous consequences and duplicated wasteful court work.

6. This point also is concluded by authority - vide Muthu Sethurayar v. Louduswami, Odayar, AIR 1959 Mad 111.

7. This restriction is but proper because the findings get merged in the decision of the magistrate and all the grounds that can be urged against the finding can be urged against the finalised decision and if there is no such restriction there will be multiplicity of proceedings and possible conflicting revisional orders reducing the whole thing to an absurdity. This wise restriction has been conceived in the best publi