- (1.) THE following questions have been referred to this Full Bench: Whether (1) the Supreme Court decision lays down the law that even if a plea is raised under Sub-section (5) of Section 145 such, a plea must be rejected once the Magistrate had arrived at the conclusion under Sub-section (1) of Section 145 that there was an apprehension of breach of peace. (2) The Division Bench decisions of this Court in Ganga Singh v. Raj Bahadur Singh and Sanka-tha Singh v. Rahmat Ullah, 1973 Cri LJ 1091 (All) and Sheo Nath Singh v. Manno Singh Yadava, 1969 All WR (HC) 817 are-no longer good law.
(2.) THE material facts of the case are that the present revisionists, Gajrai and his two brothers, moved an application under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (to be referred hereinafter as the Code), with the allegations that they were in possession of the disputed plots Nos. 513/1, 514 and 711, situate in village Aurani, P. S. Sandi, atid that the opposite party. Collector Singh, was wrongfjilly trying to interfere with their possession and there was an apprehension of the breach of peace. After obtaining the police report, the Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145 (1) of the Code and directed attachment of the disputed plots. Both the parties filed their written, statements along with affidavits and documents. The case of the applicants is that taking advantage of the old age and poor eye-sight of their father, Khemma, Collector Singh fraudulently obtained a sale-deed in his favour and started laying claim to the land. He applied for mutation of his name, but his application was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilgram. The applicants thus claimed to be in possession of the plots from the time of their father.
(3.) THEY filed affidavits of many witnesses, extracts pf village records, and also a copy of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in the above mutation case.;