Revisional power of the Sessions Judge under Section 397, CrPC can be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in the procedure, manifest error on a point of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice, or perverse findings not based on evidence or non-consideration of material evidence.

K.N.Misra, J.

1. This criminal revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1982, passed by Sri R. P. Pandaya,, Sessions Judge, Sultanpur arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.

2. There arose a dispute with regard to chak Nos.13 and 225, situate in village Meopur Barchauli, district Sultanpur. Kapil Deo, Rishi Oev and Paras Nath, opposite parties Nos.1 to 3, who had purchased the aforesaid chaks through registered sale deed dated 8-12-1977 from Vijai Bahadur and Ajai Bahadur, moved an application under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On being satisfied regarding existence of apprehension of breach of peace, the learned Magistrate passed preliminary order dated 8-3-1979. The crops standing on the said chak-land was also attached and given in the Supurdigi of the Supurdgar. It appears that by order dated 17th March, 1981, Sub-Divisional Magistrate stayed the proceedings holding that there is not apprehension of breach of peace. Against that order revision was filed by opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 30-7-1982, set aside the said order and remanded the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for deciding it on merits. It appears that litigation regarding the land in question was also continuing before the Consolidation Authorities under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The opposite parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had applied for mutation in their names on the basis of aforesaid sale deed. The revisionist Rang Bahadur Singh had contested the sale case alleging that in family settlement between him and Vijai Bahadur and Ajai Bahadur the land in dispute situate in village Meopur Barchauli, district Sultanpur was given to him and land situate in village Jainapur, district Faizabad was given to Ajai Bahadur and Vijai Bahadur where they were residing. The Consolidation Officer, after taking evidence of the parties had decided the said objection under Section 12 vide order dated 17-3-1981 and rejected the said plea of family settlement and directed that the names of opposite parties 1,2 and 3 be mutated in place of Vijai Bahadur and Ajai Bahadur in whose names Chaks were carved out and possession was also delivered to them. After remand of the case by the Sessions Judge, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective case. The opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 also brought on record a copy of the judgment and order dated 17-3-1981 passed by the Consolidation Officer in their favour. It would be relevant to mention here that against said order, revisionist had filed an appeal which, according to the learned counsel for the revisionist, has not been decided as yet. The opposite parties 1 to 3 had also filed copy of the aforesaid sale deed and also examined witnesses. The revisionist also examined witnesses in support of his claim regarding possession over the land in dispute. He also filed in original an alleged latter said to have been written by Ajai Bahadur to him. The said letter was not admitted in evidence nor it was proved. Learned counsel for the revisionist asserted that no opportunity for proving the said letter was given by the trial Magistrate. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 had also filed extract of C. H. Form No. 23 which was issued in the name of the vendors and also documents regarding delivery of possession to the vendors. The trial Magistrate, vide order dated 12-1-1982, decided the case in favour of the revisionist holding him to be in possession within two months prior to the date of the preliminary order and ordered the property to be released in his favour and restrained the opposite parties from interfering in his possession without having recourse to law. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, opposite party Nos.1 to 3 filed revision whic