JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was issued on the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the order in certain proceedings under sec. 145 should not be set aside on the ground that the proceedings against the Petitioners were instituted without jurisdiction. In support of the rule one ground has been taken, namely, that the proceeding drawn up by the Magistrate prior to the issue of notice under sec. 145 did not state the grounds on which the Magistrate was satisfied that there was a danger of the breach of the peace, and in support of this contention the rulings of this Court reported in Manik v. Azimuddi 6 C. W. N. 923 (1902), Mohesh Sowar v. Narain Bag I. L. R. 27 Cal. 981 (1900), have been relied upon. This case, however, seems to us to be clearly distinguishable from the cases referred to. In those cases the Magistrate acted on information which came to him second-hand through the Police and the learned Judges who decided those cases held that it was essential, for the validity of the proceedings under sec. 145, that the Magistrate should draw up proceedings in complete compliance with the law stating the ground of his being satisfied that the dispute likely to cause the breach of the peace existed concerning the land in question. In the present case it is clear from the record that the Magistrate held an enquiry into the matters in dispute in the presence of the parties and that he satisfied himself by that enquiry that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace and that on that finding he directed that proceedings under sec. 145 should be taken and proceedings were accordingly drawn up under that section. 2. We are unable to accept the view of the learned counsel that those proceedings were invalid because the Magistrate merely recorded, "Where as it has been made to appear to me, etc.," instead of also stating the source of his information, that is to say, adding the words "by an enquiry held by myself." 3. It seems that the real disputants were parties, 1 and 2, each of whom claimed to be the lessee in possession, while the third party is the landlord who is supporting the second party. It seems that the real disputants were parties, 1 and 2, each of whom claimed to be the lessee in possession, while the third party is the landlord who is supporting the second party. The enquiry before the Magistrate was held in the presence of the contending lessees and of the naib of the landlord. It cannot be contended that any of the parties were unaware of the source from which the Magistrate derived his information that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace, and as the object of drawing up a proceeding prior to the issue of the notice under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be to inform the parties of the grounds or information which satisfied the Magistrate that a dispute existed and as in this case an enquiry was held in their presence by the Magistrate himself and they were fully aware of his grounds for drawing up the proceedings, we are unable to say that the proceeding as drawn up in this case was defective or that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction. We therefore discharge the rule.