- (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh dated 27- 7-1987 in Criminal case No. 502 of 1986 allowing the revision of Sukha arising out of proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. initiated between Shkha and Arjun and others in the Court of S. D. M. III, Khair, district Aligarh.
(2.) IT appears that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were initiated before the Magistrate at the behest of Sukha. By a reasoned judgment and order dated 17-12-1986 the Magistrate held that Arjun and others were in possession of the disputed plots and, therefore, directed that the attached property be released in their favour. He had obviously held simultaneously that first party Sukha was not in possession. Aggrieved, Sukha had filed a revision before the Sessions Judge and two points were urged before the lower Revisional Court: (1) That the Magistrate has not apprised himself of the correct evidence on the record. (2) That there is no finding that there was initial necessity of passing an order under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. Sri S. S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the applicants had assailed the order of the Sessions Judge whereby he had remanded the matter to the Magistrate's Court on the finding that the discussion of the evidence was not proper and legal. Sri R. S. Yadav, learned Counsel for the opposite party has supported the said order. Learned Counsel for the parties have not advanced arguments concerning the absence of requisite finding for necessitating the enforcement of Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. , during the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The examination of the Magistrate's orders further satisfies this Court that there stood need and necessity for passing the order under Section 146 (1) during the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C.
(3.) THE aforesaid points of the learned Counsel for the applicants took this Court to the entire discussion as recorded in the impugned order dated 17-12-1986. Two fundamental deficiencies were noticed by the Magistrate. As regards the claim of opposite party Sukha, he said that he had not filed the sale-deed which, accord ing to him conferred title. He further said that the possession of Sukha is based only on the said title deed. It was in the fitness of things that he should have produced its copy.;