I.P.Singh - (1.) SMT. Kamla, first party has preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 5-1-85 passed by Sri J. P. Gupta, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Criminal Revision No. 74 of 1984 arising out of judgment and order dated 14-6-84 passed by Sri Hari Krishna S. D. M Dhampur, District Bijnor in case no. 35 of 1984 arising out of proceedings under Section 145 CrPC.
(2.) THE preliminary order initially was passed under Section 145 (1) CrPC by learned S. D. M. on 5-12-81. Due to soma: error it was substituted by another order dated 14-5-84. Thereafter the matter was considered under Section 146 CrPC and the learned S. D. M. passed order dated 14-6-84 holding that from the discussion made by him of the oral documentary evidence adduced by the parties he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was in possession on the date of the preliminary order i.e. 5-12-81 or two months prior to that so he attached the subject of dispute until a competent court determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the possession thereof. He also directed the property in dispute to be given in the supurdagi of supurdar as detailed in his said order dated 14-6-84. Sri Ghasita second party filed revision no. 74/84 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, who by his order dated 5-1-85 allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the learned S. D. M. and held that Smt. Kamla was not in possession of the land in dispute on the; date of the preliminary order or even two months prior to that. According to him, the property in dispute was in posses ion of the co-tenants Ghasita, Sukhan and Chhatar Singh.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by that order, Smt. Kamla has filed the present revision in this court Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, the jurisdiction to decide the question of possession is vested in the Magistrate and the revisional court cannot go into that question and hold one or the other party to be in possession over the disputed property. It is therefore argued that the present revision should be allowed and the order of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bijnor dated 5-1-83 should be set aside. Bare reading of said sections to my round, conforms with the above view expressed by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The opening words of section 145 CrPc are "whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied......";