JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— This case has been referred by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares with the recommendation that conviction of the accused under section 434 of the Penal Code, 1860, be set aside, it appears that there wag a dispute between the accused and some other persons as to the possession of a ghat, and proceedings were held under section 145 of the Code of Criminal” Procedure. The Joint Magistrate before whom the proceedings were held, made an order under that Beotion, declaring one of the parties to be entitled to possession until evicted in due course of law, but he also ordered boundary marks to be laid down defining the limits of the possession of the respective parties. These boundary marks having been removed by the accused, they have been convicted by the Joint Magistrate under section 434, Penal Code, 1860. I fully agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the authority of a public servant referred to in that section must be understood to mean the-lawful authority of a public servant. We have therefore to determine whether the Joint Magistrate in ordering the boundary marks to be laid down acted in pursuance of law. Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not authorize him to order boundary marks to be erected. The only order which under sub-section (6) of that section he was competent to pass, was an order declaring one of the parties to the proceedings to be entitled to possession of the subject of dispute until evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such evidence. 2. The section does not empower the Court to put any party into possession or to lay down the boundary marks of the property, the subject of dispute. The learned Joint Magistrate in his explanations says that section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorized him to make an order for the erection of boundary marks. It is manifest that that section has no application. It authorizes a Criminal Court to make an order for the disposal of any property or document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which has been used for the commission of any offence. It is manifest that that section has no application. It authorizes a Criminal Court to make an order for the disposal of any property or document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which has been used for the commission of any offence. The property in question was not in the custody of the Court, nor is it property regarding which any offence was committed. The mere fact that section 145 authorizes the Court to attach the property in case of emergency does not empower the Court to make any order for laying down boundary marks. It is also clear that the Joint Magistrate did not purport to act under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. Farther, as the learned Sessions Judge points out, he was not an officer in charge of a sub-division appointed under section 18 of Act No. III of 1901. As, for the above reasons, the boundary marks in question were not erected under the lawful authority of a public servant, the accused were not guilty of the offence punishable under section 434 of the Penal Code, 1860. I accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine imposed, if paid, be refunded. 3. Conviction set aside and fine refunded.