The main legal point established is that orders under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be specific and definite for execution, and local enquiry cannot substitute legal evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this case the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jharsuguda, on 2-8-1988 and 20-12-1988, as wen as the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, in proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure have been challenged.

2. The Petitioner was a member of the second part and opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were members of the first party in the proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure relating to plot No. 26314824 appertaining to khata No. 106717 of mouza Ektali. Both the parties claimed possession in respect thereof. After they submitted their written statements in the proceeding, the Magistrate made local enquiry of the disputed land in the presence of the parties and their advocate and on the basis of facts noticed by him, he declared possession of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by order dated 2-8-1988. Consequent upon the order, a Revenue Inspector was deputed to effect delivery of possession of the disputed land to the successful party. But it was not possible on his part to do so, because the description of the land, possession of which was to be delivered, was neither specific nor definite by actual measurement and the description thereof in the order of the Magistrate was vague. Accordingly, he submitted a report, whereupon the Magistrate passed a further order on 20-12-1988 instructing the Revenue Inspector to demarcate the land in consultation with the parties and the police. Against the above order a revision was carried to the learned Sessions Judge who was not inclined to interfere on the ground that the order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was not challenged in the higher Court and the aggrieved party may approach the civil Court far declaration of his title and possession according to law.

3. On perusal of the records of the proceeding, certain peculiar features emerge. After bath the parties submitted their written statements, the Magistrate passed an order on 3-5-1988 to make a local enquiry u/s 148, Code of Criminal Procedure an the same day at 5.00 p.m. and gave notice to the advocates. After making the local enquiry, he deferred passing of the order and actually passed the same an 2-8-1988. In the order itself he drew a sketch map which was not to the scale and with reference thereto declared the possession of apposite party Nos. 1 and 2, and accordingly directed delivery of possession. It does not appear from the records that he made a record of his local enquiry. Therefore, it was not known what he had noticed and how he utilised his knowledge in arriving at the conclusion as to the finding of possession in favour of apposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The sketch map drawn by-him which was vague and not clear did not help the Revenue Inspector in effecting delivery of possession. In fact, an account of such vagueness and as the record discloses it had not been passible to effect delivery of possession for effective- compliance with the order passed u/s 145. The Magistrate is required to pass a specific and definite order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure which can be executed. 1? the order is incapable of execution the party in whose favour it is passed does not derive any benefit out of it. It has to be termed as an order not in accordance with law. The order dated 2-8-1988 passed by the Magistrate is an order of this nature and, on the face of it, it is unassailable as vague, unspecific and indefinite.

4. Section 148 clothes a Magistrate with jurisdiction to make local enquiry either by himself or through a subordinate Magistrate for purposes of Sections 145, 146 and 147, Code of Criminal Procedure. The report of local enquiry may be read as evidence in the case. The abject of local enquiry is to understand and appreciate the topography or the land in dispute in order to aid the Magistrate in appreciating the evidence offered by parties in Court. But it cannot take the place of legal evidence, much less the result thereof can be u