Mathur, C. J.:- The following questions have been referred to this Full Bench :-

"Whether

(1) the Supreme Court decision lays down the law that even if a plea is raised under Sub-Section (5) of Section 145, such a plea must be rejected once the Magistrate had arrived at the conclusion under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145 that there was an apprehension of breach of peace.

(2) The Division Bench decisions of this Court in Ganga Singh v. Raj Bahadur Singh, AIR 1958 All 803 : (1958 Cri LJ 1369) and Sankatha Singh v. Rahmat Ullah, 1973 Cri LJ 1091 (All) and Sheo Nath Singh v. Mannoo Singh Yadava, 1969 All WR (HC) 817 are no longer good law."

2. The material facts of the case are that the present revisionists, Gajraj and his two brothers, moved an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1898 (to be referred hereinafter as the Code), with the allegations that they were in possession of the disputed plots Nos. 513/1, 514 and 711, situate in village Aurani, P.S. Sandi, and that the opposite party, Collector Singh, was wrongfully trying to interfere with their possession and there was an apprehension of the breach of peace. After obtaining the police report, the Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code and directed attachment of the disputed plots. Both the parties filed their written statements along with affidavits and documents. The case of the applicants is that taking advantage of the old age and poor eye-sight of their father, Khemma, Collector Singh fraudulently obtained a sale-deed in his favour and started laying claim to the land. He applied for mutation of his name, but his application was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilgram. The applicants thus claimed to be in possession of the plots from the time of their father.

3. They filed affidavits of many witnesses, extracts of village records, and also a copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in the above mutation case.

4. Collector Singh claimed title through the registered sale-deed executed by Khemma transferring the disputed plots to him. He claimed to be in continuous possession of the disputed plots from the year 1965. He also filed many affidavits in support of his claim and a few documents including rent receipts. In the affidavits it was further asserted that there was no apprehension of the breach of peace.

5. In spite of the assertion made by and on behalf of Collector Singh, opposite-party, that there existed no dispute likely to cause the breach of peace the Magistrate recorded no finding on this question, proceeded with the inquiry and passed a final order as contemplated by Sec. 145(6) of the Code, namely, that Collector Singh was in possession of the disputed land within two months of the preliminary order. He at the same time directed the applicants not to interfere with the possession of Collector Singh. The attached property was released in his favour, possession to be delivered on the expiry of the period prescribed for revision.

6. The applicants, Gajraj and others, preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge of Hardoi and, as would appear from his order, the finding recorded by the Magistrate was challenged on merits, and not on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to proceed with the inquiry without first recording a finding on the assertion of Collector Singh that there was no apprehension of the breach of peace. The Sessions Judge was of opinion that the present was not a fit case for interference and, therefore, dismissed the revision. Thereafter the applicants moved the present revision before the High Court and challenged the order of the Magistrate on three grounds; firstly, that the Magistrate did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present proceeding; secondly, that the Magistrate did not consider the evidence adduced by the applicants and, therefore, the finding on merits could not be sustained and thirdly, that the Magistrate acted without jurisdict