KRISHAN LAL Vs. JAI DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of the proceedings under is. 145, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Code). It would appear that on July 28, 1982, the Police of Police, Station Pundri submitted a Kalandra against Janak Singh and Jai Dev etc. as the first party and Wasanda Ram etc. as the second party, alleging therein that the first party Janak Singh etc. were in possession of the land in dispute and the second party Wasanda Ram etc. wanted to occupy the said land forcibly. It was prayed that proceeding under Section 145 of the Code be initiated against both the parties failing which there was an apprehension of breach of peace. On September, 30, 1982, the Executive Magistrate, Kaithal, passed the usual order under Section 145(1) of the Code, stating that there was imminent danger of breach of peace over the land in dispute and consequently exercising his power under Section 146(1) of the Code attached the property in dispute and appointed Tehsildar, Kaithal as a receiver thereof. Janak Singh etc., first party, went in revision before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra set aside the order of a attachment passed by the Executive Magistrate, Kaithal, with the following observations :

(2.) THE opposite party, aggrieved with the said order, has filed the revision in this Court. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf has argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has based his impugned order on conjectures and surmises, without properly appreciating the facts of the case that the observation that the Executive Magistrate has nowhere mentioned in his order that he considers the case as one of emergency and that in the absence of any such an finding, the learned Magistrate has ordered the attachment of the land in dispute, is factually wrong. It is contended that a bare, persual of the order passed by the Executive Magistrate would show that there was an imminent danger of breach of peace and, therefore, the order of attachment of the land in dispute was passed. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no material before the Executive Magistrate for coming to the conclusion that there was any apprehension of breach of the peace. I find myself unable to accept this argument. The preliminary order issued by the Executive Magistrate in this case begins with the words : "The counsel for the parties present. They have been heard and file perused from which it has found that there is imminent danger of breach of peace over the land in dispute and at any time a dispute can take place between the parties... and there should he no dispute between the parties for the possession of the land in dispute, I attach the land in dispute under section, 146. Criminal Procedure.

(3.) APPLYING the aforesaid principle, the order of the Executive Magistrate dated September 30, 1982, in the present case and the proceedings consequent thereto are unassailable.