KAILASH PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Gyanpur arises from proceedings under section 145 of the Cri P. C. The proceedings originated on the application of one Mahangi (first party) alleging that he was in possession of a plot of land surrounded by a boundary wall behind the house of Wahid and Zahid (Second Party ). Both the parties claimed to be in possession of the enclosure in dispute. The Sub-Divisional magistrate, after considering the affidavits put in by the parties and inspecting the locality, found that Mahangi (first party) was in possession of the disputed property. He accordingly ordered the property to be released in favour of Mahangi and directed Wahid and Zahid (second party) not to interfere with the peaceful possession of mahangi until he is evicted by a competent Court of law.

( 2 ) DISSATISFIED with this order, Wahid and Zahid (second party) filed a revision before the sessions Judge. It appears that the Sub-divisional magistrate, who inspected the locality, did not record a memorandum of the facts observed by him at the inspection as required by Section 539a, Cri. P. C. The observation of the Sessions Judge on this omission on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document