T.N. Singh, J.

1. On a reference made by one of us sitting singly the following question has arisen for the decision of this Bench:--

"Whether an order passed by a Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an interlocutory within the meaning of the expression as used in Sub-section (2) of Section 397, Cr.P.C, 1973."

2. The occasion for this reference is provided by conflicting views of two judges of this Court on the question aforesaid. In Gajadhar v. Harbanshlal Awasthy, short noted in the view taken was that an order passed under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. was an order of interlocutory nature and it was observed as follows :--

"The order by its very nature is temporary and is meant to avert the likelihood of breach of peace. An order of this type does not, in my opinion, decide rights and liabilities of the parties concerning the dispute. It is purely of an interim of temporary nature. In my opinion, therefore, an order of the type is interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code and no revision would therefore lie against such an order."

3. The other view was expressed in Suresh Chandra v. Sitabai 1983 M.P.LJ 119, in following terms :--

"As regards the contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, attaching the property and appointing a receiver, was final without entering into the controversy whether it was interlocutory order or a final one, suffice to say that it was an order of the moment and hence, ordinarily it was revisable." (See: Ratanlal v. Vijaysingh 1976 MPLJ 14 and Hasmukh, J., Jhaveri v sheila Dadlani.

4. In Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short 'the Code') captioned "Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquillity", are to be read Sections 145 and 148, clubbed under sub-heading "Disputes as to Immovable property." An Executive Magistrate is empowered to act under Section 145, Cr.P.C. when "a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace concerning a land or water or boundaries. Thereof within his local jurisdiction" arises. By order in writing he directs parties concerned in dispute to attend his Court and to put in written statement of their respective claims as respect the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. After hearing evidence of parties adduced in support of such statement the Magistrate has to decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under Subsection (1), in possession of the subject of dispute. The Magistrate has to issue an order under Section 145(6) declaring the party in possession to be entitled to retain the same until evicted therefrom in due course of law and for bidding any disturbance of such possession until such eviction. Under Sub-section (8) when the Magistrate finds that any crop or other produce of the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for appropriate custody or sale of such property and upon completion of the enquiry to make an order for the disposal of the property or the sale proceeds thereof.

5. The Sub-heading of Section 146 is important as it throws sufficient light on the object of the provision -- "power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver." We may extract in extenso Sub-section (1):--

"(1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute he, may attach the subject of dispute until a competent Court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof:

Provided that such Magistrate may with-draw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelih