- (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Jaunpur recommending that the order dated 29-10-1951 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Shahganj district Jaunpur for the release of the attached property in favour of the first party, i. e. , Anandi Chamar and others, be quashed.
(2.) THE proceedings arose out of a case under Section 145, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence produced before him came to the conclusion that there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace and he, therefore, dismissed the application under Section 145, Cr. P. C. He, however, proceeded to decide the question of possession and found that the first party was in possession of the property on the relevant date, i. e. , within two months of the preliminary order and it was from his possession that the attachment was made. He passed an order that the attached property might be released in favour of the first party. Against this decision the second party filed a revision.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has found that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order after he had come to the conclusion that there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace and the proper order which should have been passed by him after coming to this finding was that he should have dismissed the application and quashed further proceedings. He has also found that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to enter into the question of possession after he had found that there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace and in support of his view he has relied on several decision's mentioned in his Judgment. The learned Magistrate in his explanation relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court; but the reference of this case has been wrongly given by him. He has mentioned -- 'state v. Sheoratan Singh', (AIR 1951 'nagpur, pages 56 to 59) instead of AIR 1951 Nag 201 (A) ).;