( 1 ) I have had the advantage of reading the opinion of my learned brother James and I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by him.

( 2 ) THE question which calls for our determination may be stated in the terms in which it has been stated by my learned brother, namely:

"whether the order of a Magistrate under Section 145 (4), Criminal P. C. which does not give any reasons for the order can or cannot be upheld because the learned Magistrate chose to make the order in Form XXII or Schedule V appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure?"

Section 145 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in these terms:"the Magistrate shall then, without refer-ence to the merits of the claims of any of such parties to a right to possess the subject of dis-pute, peruse the statement so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be pro-duced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence if any as he thinks necessary, and, If possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order before mentioned in such pos-session of the said subject: provided that, if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has within two months next before the date of such order been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, he may treat the party so dis-possessed as if he had been in possession at such date: provided also, that, if the Magistrate considers the case one of emergency, he may at any time attach the subject of dispute, pending his decision under this section. "

From the afore-quoted sub-section of Section 145 it is , clear that the Magistrate is enjoined to decide the question as to which party to the dispute was in possession of the subject-matter of such dispute. The decision has to be a judicial decision after taking evidence and after considering that evidence. It is also clear that parties have a right to be heard at these proceedings before the Magistrates decision is given; so that all the elements, which one finds preceding a judicial decision, have to be employed or gone through before the Magistrate can make a decision in regard to the possession of a party under this sub-section. The question, which therefore arises, is whether the Magistrate should while making the order, merely give his decision or whether the Magistrate should give reasons for arriving at his decision. Normally all decisions that are given by courts of law give reasons for those decisions. In the judicial sphere reasons have always formed an integral part of the decision in a broad sense. A bald decision unsupported by any reasons has not really been countenanced or recognised as a judicial decision. 2a. The Code of Criminal Procedure has nowhere denned an order, nor has it laid down the requisites of an order in the same manner as it has laid down the requisites of a valid judgment. It has been argued that there is a distinc- tion between an order and a judgment, and that the distinction lies in the fact that in the case of a judgment it is necessary to give reasons for the decision, while in the case of an order it is not necessary to give the reasons. In my opinion there is no justification in the Code of Criminal Procedure for such a broad proposition, for it is clear from some of the sections of the Code itself that there is special injunction to give reasons for some of the orders that are made under that Code. It has been suggested that those sections of the Code which specifically enjoin the giving of reasons for the orders are the only orders in respect of which it is necessary to give reasons and that in respect of those orders in respect of which the Code does not require the reasons to be given no reasons need be given. I am again unable to accept this broad proposition for the reason that laying down such a broad proposition would run contrary to well established judicial principles of deciding matters and making orders in respect of such matters. orders are made in