Sharma, J.—Proceedings under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procee-dure were started by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Khetri on the application of Krishana son of Nanag Jat (herein after to be referred to as the opposite party). During the proceedings, property was attached. On the 7th November, 1951 learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings as in his opinion there was no longer any apprehension of the breach of peace. After the proceedings were dropped the opposite party presented an application that the land and the crop in dispute were in his possession and should be restored to him. The learned Magistrate accepted this application and directed, the attached property to be handed over to the opposite party. Against this order the applicants Kishan Sahai and Ghodbad went in revision to the court of Sessions at Jhunjhunu. The Additional Sessions Judge Jhunjhunu has made this reference recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Khetri dated the 9th January, 1951 regarding the delivery of possession of the property in dispute to the opposite party Kishana be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants in support of the reference. The learned Government Advocate concedes that after the proceedings under sec. 145 were dropped, the learned Magistrate was functus officio and he was not authorised to make the order that the property should be delivered to the opposite party as this action of the Magistrate amounted to the decision regarding question of possession. The opposite party inspite of notice has not appeared. 3. I am afraid the order of the learned Magistrate is illegal and can-not be supported. When the proceedings under sec. 145 were dropped the Magistrate had absolutely no power to make an order that the property be returned to a particular party because that amounts to deciding the question of possession which the Magistrate had no right to do after dropping the proceedings. In Dashrath vs. Tara Chand (A. I. R. 1925 Nagpur Page 297) property was attached on account of emergency during the proceedings under sec. 145 but after recording evidence, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no danger of breach of peace and on that ground he dropped the proceedings. At the same time he made an order that attached property be restored to the party whose lock was found on the property at the time of attachment. 145 but after recording evidence, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no danger of breach of peace and on that ground he dropped the proceedings. At the same time he made an order that attached property be restored to the party whose lock was found on the property at the time of attachment. It was held that the Magistrate had no such power after dropping the proceedings. In Naramyya and another vs. Chiguluri Venkish and others A. I. R. 1925 Madras Page 1952(Donepudi)also it was held that after the Magistrate drops the proceedings under sec. 145 he is functus officio and has no jurisdiction to pass any further orders in the case. e. g. with regard to the delivery of the attached property to either party. I am in respectful agreement with the views of the learned Judges of Madras and Nagpur High Courts and hold that the learned Magistrates order about delivery of possession to Kishna opposite party was illegal and is liable to be vacated. The reference is accepted and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Khetri dated the 9th January, 1951 regarding delivery of possession of the property to Kishna son of Nanag Jat opposite party (applicant under sec. 145 proceedings) is set aside.