A Magistrate's order conforming to a Civil Court's possession finding under Sec. 146 of the CrPC is not subject to revision and reinforces the limited jurisdictional interpretations on Criminal and Civil Courts.

1. This application in revision arises put of proceedings under S.145, Criminal P. C. and is directed against an order passed by the Magistrate in terms of S.146 (1 - B) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. The dispute related to a plot of land which each party claimed to be in his exclusive possession. On being satisfied that there was an apprehension of the breach of the peace in respect of the land in question, the Magistrate attached the property and followed the procedure laid down in sub-clause (1) of S.145, Criminal P. C. After perusing the written statements, affidavits and other documents filed by the parties concerned, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was a fit case which should be referred to the Civil Court under sub-section (1) of S.146, Criminal P. C. The parties were directed to appear before the Civil Court and they adduced evidence in support of their respective claims as respects of the fact of possession of the subject of dispute. The Civil Court recorded a finding that the opposite party was in possession of the disputed plot on the date of the preliminary order as also two months next before the date of such order.

3. On receipt of the finding of the Civil Court the Magistrate proceeded to dispose of the proceeding under S.146 (1 - B), Criminal P. C. in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court, and passed an order directing the delivery of possession to the opposite party.

4. The applicant filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge against the order of the Magistrate but the same was dismissed. He then came up in revision to this Court and the matter was heard by our brother Rajeshwari Prasad, J., who observed that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Guru Prasad Pandey v. State , 1967 All LJ 649 an order passed by the Magistrate in conformity with the decision of the Civil Court was not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge and the High Court. He was, however, of the view that it was not clear from the said decision whether what was intended was to lay down that no revision petition was entertainable against the order of the Magistrate or whether it was intended that the correctness of the finding of the Civil Court was not liable to be challenged by way of revision. He, therefore, directed the case to be laid before a larger Bench for decision and that is how the matter has come before us.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant advanced three contentions before us; first, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the reference to the Civil Court. Secondly, that if it was shown that the reference made by the Magistrate to the Civil Court was itself illegal the order passed by him under S.146 (1 - B) would become vitiated and the High Court was entitled to interfere in revision. Lastly, it was contended that the order of the Magistrate, which was based on the finding recorded by the Civil Court, was liable to be challenged by way of revision.

6. Before we proceed to examine the above contentions, it is necessary to read the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

7. S.146, Criminal P. C. as amended by Act 26 of 1955, is as follows:
"146(1) - If the Magistrate is of opinion that none of the parties was then in such possession, or is unable to decide as to which of them was then in such possession, of the subject of dispute, he may attach it, and draw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the record of the proceeding to a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute at the date of the order as expla