H.R. Khanna, J. - (1.) THIS case was referred to a Division Bench by my order dated October 11, 1962, because there was a conflict on the point as to what is the ef feet of non -compliance with the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by a Magistrate.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case are that on 5th June, 1961, Sub -Inspector in charge of police station Sahnewal reported that there was a dispute regarding land between Ajaib Singh, Harbans Singh and Satwant Singh on one side and Amar Singh, Pritam Singh, Surjan Singh and Rattan Singh on the other. The cause of the dispute was that Jaswant Singh, son of Ajaib Singh, had sold his one -fourth share in the land which had been given to him by his father to Rattan Singh without mentioning field numbers of the land. According to the police, the land in dispute was cultivated by Amar Singh, Pritam Singh and Surjan Singh and they were not willing to give share of the produce to Ajaib Singh who claimed the land to be his own. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the report passed an order to the following effect - The calendar has been produced today. It should be registered. Notice should issue to the parties for 4th July, 1961, for filing their documentary evidence and affidavits and for producing persons on whose statements they rely. The parties thereafter filed copies of Khasra Girda -wari and affidavits. During the course of proceedings, an application was filed that the produce of the land was likely to decay. It was then ordered that the produce be disposed of and the sale -proceeds be deposited in the treasury. The produce was thereafter sold for Rs. 1,150 and the amount was deposited in the treasury. The learned Magistrate after hearing counsel for the parties passed an order that Amar Singh, Pritam Singh and Surjan Singh were in cultivating possession of the land in dispute and they be kept in possession of that land till they were ousted by due process of law. The dispute was further stated to be between Ajaib Singh and Harbans Singh on one side and Rattan Singh on the other with regard to the share of the produce. The question whether Amar Singh and his co -tenants held the tenancy under Rattan Singh or under Ajaib Singh was held to be a matter to be decided by civil Court. Ajaib Singh and Harbans Singh then filed a revision against the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the trial Magistrate had not complied with Sub -section (1) of Section 145 of the Code because he had not written anything regarding his satisfaction that a dispute existed which was likely to cause a breach of peace concerning the land and had not mentioned the grounds on the basis of which he was so satisfied. It was further observed that the trial Magistrate had not complied with the provisions of Sub -section (3) of Section 145 about the publication and service of the order under Sub -section (1) of Section 145. The order of the trial Magistrate was also held to be bad because, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Magistrate had not decided as to which party had been in possession of the land on the date of the preliminary order and whether there had been any dispossession of that party. Recommendation was accordingly made that the order of the trial Magistrate be set aside and the case remanded for disposal in accordance with law.
(3.) WHEN the matter came up before me it was pointed out that there was a conflict of view on the point as to what was the effect of non -compliance with Sub -section (1) of Section 145. I accordingly referred the matter to a larger bench.;