ORDER Seth, J. - This is an application in revision by one Ram Naresh against whom proceedings under S. 145, Criminal P.C., were started by one Gul Mohammad in the Court of Mr. B.V. David, Magistrate, First Class, Banaras. A number of other persona subsequently joined as applicants with Gul Mohammad. 2. The learned Magistrate made the order contemplated by S. 145 (1), Criminal P.C. on 24th September 1946. After considering the evidence led in the case he decided it on 11th December 1946, and ordered that the disputed property be attached under S. 146 (1), Criminal P.C., until a competent Court had determined the right of the party aggrieved. He had recorded his finding in the following words : Under these circumstances, I am unable to satisfy myself as to which party is in possession of the land in suit and am satisfied that there is an apprehension of a breach of peace. Before recording this finding, the learned Magistrate has recorded another finding in the following words: I therefore come to the conclusion that the possession of Sam Naresh and others is forceful possession within two months from the original order dated 24th September 1946. 3. Ram Naresh applied to the Court of the Session Judge of Banaras to move the High Court to set aside this order. This application was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge who rejected it on 9th July 1947. Ram Naresh has, therefore, come up in revision against the order of the Magistrate to this Court. 4. I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be maintained. Section 145 (4) Criminal P.C., makes it obligatory that, if possible, it should be decided as to which party was in possession of the subject-matter of dispute on the date of the order contemplated under S. 145 (1). Provisions of S. 146 (i) apply only to such cases where a Magistrate is not able to come to a definite conclusion as to which party was in possession on such a date. In this case there is a definite finding by the Magistrate that Ram Naresh had come into possession before the order under S. 145 (1), Criminal P.C., was passed, though it is subjected to a rider, that he had taken possession forcibly. In this case there is a definite finding by the Magistrate that Ram Naresh had come into possession before the order under S. 145 (1), Criminal P.C., was passed, though it is subjected to a rider, that he had taken possession forcibly. There is no finding by the Magistrate that Ram Naresh had taken forcible possession from any one of the opposite parties to this revision, who were the applicants before the Magistrate. The last finding recorded by the learned Magistrate implies that he was unable to arrive at any such finding. The learned Magistrate thought that Ram Naresh could not be deemed to have been in possession on the date of the order in view of the proviso to S. 145 (4), Criminal P.C. The proviso reads as follows : Provided that, if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has within two months next before the date of such order been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, he may treat the party so dispossessed as if he had been in possession at such date. 5. The proviso, therefore, becomes applicable only if a Magistrate can come to a definite finding that any particular party had been dispossessed within a period of two months, nest preceding the order under S. 145 (1). The effect of the proviso is that it enables a party to be treated in possession on the date of the order though actually he may be found to have been dispossessed before that date. It is only, if such a party can be treated or deemed to be in possession on the date of the order, that the person actually in possession can be said not to have been in possession on the date of the order under S. 145 (1). In this case, according to the findings of the learned Magistrate, there being no persons or party who could be entitled to the benefit of the proviso, it cannot be said that Ram Naresh was not in possession on the date of the order. On the findings recorded by him, the learned Magistrate should have held that Ram Naresh was in possession on the date of the order and should have directed possession to-be delivered to him. 6. I set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11th December 1946, and direct that the possession of the disputed property be delivered to Ram Naresh.