(1.) In this case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. He then passed a proceeding directing the Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvuru to hold a local enquiry, record evidence on both sides as to possession and submit his report with the records. The Sub- Magistrate examined 24 witnesses, exhibited a number of documents and submitted his report with the records. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined 8 more witnesses himself and then passed orders on all the evidence thus recorded by himself and the Sub-Magistrate, declaring one party to be in possession.
(2.) It is argued (1) that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate s action in directing the Sub-Magistrate to take evidence was not authorised by Section 148, and that he was not entitled to consider the evidence so recorded and (2) that his action rendered the final order passed by him void, as being without jurisdiction.
(3.) For both propositions reliance is placed on the judgment of Wallis, J., in Arumuga Goundan v. Venkata Subbien (1907) I.L.R. 31 Mad. 82 which certainly seems to support them.