P.K.Jain - (1.) LIST has been revised. None appears for the revisionist. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 and learned counsel A.G.A.
(2.) IN proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C., the Magistrate gave finding of possession of the revisionist and passed final order in confirmity with the finding of possession. Ram Lakhan, aggrieved by the said judgment and order, filed Criminal Revision No. 226 of 1982 which was allowed by the revisional court. The order of the learned Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh. I have been taken through the judgments of the courts below. The learned Magistrate appears to have been overwhelmed by the observations of the Tahsildar in his inspection report dated 4.4.1982. It is mainly on the basis of the said report that finding of possession of the revisionist was arrived at by the learned Magistrate. The revisional court held that the possession on the date of the preliminary order of two months next before passing of the preliminary order was to be seen and not the possession on the date of the local inspection by the Tahsildar. The revisional court has also given other reasons which, in my view, are cogent for not sustaining the order of the learned Magistrate. In my view, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 3.5.1984 is vacated.;