JUDGMENT 1. This rule was issued with regard to an order dated the 6th January last purporting to have been made by the Joint Magistrate of Monghyr under sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that on the 22nd December 1904 Shyam Lal, the 1st party, filed a petition alleging amongst other things that the Petitioners who are servants of the Banaili Raj, under order from Babu Sib Sanker Sahai, the manager, and Mr. Bray, a circle officer of the Raj, were about to loot crops standing on certain land which he claimed as his jote under a settlement with a former manager of the Raj; that the manager had told him that he had no legal status under the settlement made with the former manager; that pressure was being put upon the raiyats to loot the crops and to take settlement direct from the Raj. The Joint Magistrate thereupon made the following order: "Issue notice under sec. 144 to the 2nd party not to commit breach of peace. Meantime the crops must be cut by the Police in the presence of both parties and deposited with a 3rd party. Both sides should appeal here on 6th January." 2. On the 6th January the Petitioner who with the manager and Mr. Bray are described as the 2nd party filed a petition before the Joint Magistrate denying that they had ever opposed the reaping of the crops or that there had been any disturbance or likelihood of a breach of the peace and alleging that the crops had already been rut and peacefully harvested and submitting that as there was no paddy on the land an order under sec. 144, Criminal Procedure Code, was wholly unnecessary. They also alleged that the holding of Shyam Lal was in the nature of an ijara and was terminable at the instance of the landlord who was unwilling to allow it to continue; that, many of the raiyats had already taken settlement direct from the Raj. 3. After hearing the parties the Joint Magistrate on the 6th January made the following orders:-- I have heard the parties. It seems that Shyam Lal is a non-occupancy raiyat of the disputed land and the 1st party without ousting him according to law have tried to settle the Lands with some of his under-raiyats. This they are not entitled to do. It seems that Shyam Lal is a non-occupancy raiyat of the disputed land and the 1st party without ousting him according to law have tried to settle the Lands with some of his under-raiyats. This they are not entitled to do. They must not therefore interfere with him in the cultivation of the land in his khas jote or the collection of the rent from the under-tenants. Mr. Bray and Babu Siba Sanker Sahai have not appeared today. I myself think it unlikely that they will commit a breach of the peace. I shall not make the order against them absolute. I shall fixed 16th January for hearing any objection that they may urge personally or by pleader. Meantime I shall make the notice absolute against the other members of the 2nd party. 4. A rule was issued to the District Magistrate and to the opposite party to show cause why so much of the order as directs the Petitioner not to interfere with the first party as to cultivation of the land in his khas jote or the collection of rent from the under-tenants should not be set aside or why such other order as to this Court might seem fit should not be made. The Magistrate of the District has submitted that the order is bad on various grounds, the only one to which we need refer being that it did not disclose why immediate prevention was necessary so that a proceeding under sec. 144 rather than under sec. 145, Cr. P. Code, should be taken. 5. The order has been attacked on various grounds. It is unnecessary to discuss these In detail for, we think it must be set aside on the one ground that it does not appear from the proceedings that the Joint Magistrate was of opinion that immediate prevention or speedy remedy was necessary and the order made does not state the material facts of the case as required by the section. 6. Before a Magistrate can take action under sec. 144 he must be of opinion that the immediate prevention or speedy remedy is necessary and when he has made up his mind that it is so he must state the material facts on the order. This he has not done. 7. 6. Before a Magistrate can take action under sec. 144 he must be of opinion that the immediate prevention or speedy remedy is necessary and when he has made up his mind that it is so he must state the material facts on the order. This he has not done. 7. In showing cause against the rule, Shyam Lal, the 1st party, filed an affidavit but even there it is not denied that the crops had been cut peaceably and had all been removed before the order of the 6th January was made, nor was it denied that his tenure was terminable at the option of the landlord. The rule is made absolute.