- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. This revision is directed against the revisional Judgement dated 22-12-1990 by means of which the order passed by the S. D. M. , Ghazipur was set aside proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. was dropped.
(2.) THE short question for consideration in the present case is that the present respondents claimed to have purchased the land in question by sale-deed executed on 24-2-1986 and claimed to have come in possession since the said date of purchase. THE preliminary order in the proceedings under Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. was passed on 22-3-1986. THE lower revisional court who allowed the revision of the respon dents observed in the judgment that the land in question was transferred by Shivtahal and Ram Badan. THE case of the present applicants is that the land originally belonged to them and they had permitted Shivtahal and Ram Badan to remain in possession of the same and thus Shivtahal and Ram Badan had no legal right to transfer the same in favour of others. In proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. the main question to adjudicate is to find out which of the parties was in possession of the land prior to two months before the date of passing of the preliminary order. It has been found by both the courts below that the contesting opposite parties came in possession over the land in question since the date of purchase i. e. 24-2-1986. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that opposite parties entered into possession by using force and by dispossessing the revisionist-applicants. This argument might have carried sufficient weight provided it was shown or proved prior to date of purchase by the opposite parties or any time prior to the sale-deed that revisionsist were in actual possession. It is always Possession which is the determining factor in proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P. C. Since there is no documentary evidence or any such oral evidence which may show that the revisionist-applicants were actually in possession of the land to two months prior to the date of the preliminary order, they claimed to have a preliminary order passed within one month of the date of sale-deed. The contesting opposite parties were legally occupant of the land. The grievance of the applicants if any, can be resolved by the civil or revenue court. The court below considered this aspect and also ob.-served that the proceedings under Section 107/116, Cr. P. C. was also initiated. Thus, the judgment or the court below holding that the revisionist-applicants have no case for initiation of proceedings under Sections 146, Cr. P. C. and the order of dropping the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. is perfectly correct. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;