Sharma, J—This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhun-jhunu, recommending that a composite order of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khetri, under sec. 145 as well as under sec. 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be set aside. 2. Matadin, who will hereafter be referred to as the first party, filed an application before the Magistrate that he was in possession of a certain field in village Jasrapur, but Berisal Singh and others, who would hereafter be referred to as the second party, were disturbing his possession, and it was apprehended that there would be a breach of the peace. The field be, therefore, attached, pending enquiry, and after the decision, possession might be delivered to him. It was also prayed that the second party be bound down under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Magistrate referred the case for a police report, and on the receipt of the police report, he made an order that the second party should show cause why they should not be bound down under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to execute bonds for keeping the peace for one year. This order was made on the 26th of September, 1950. It was also ordered that notices be issued to the second party under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about actual possession 4. After the second party appeared, the order of the 26th September, 1950, was neither read over to the second party, nor its substance explained. No written statements were filed as were necessary under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by either party, nor the order required them to do so. The Magistrate, after recording evidence of the parties, made the final order on the 30th of December 1950, that the second party should deliver possession of the property to the first party, and that the second party should execute bonds not to disturb the breach of the peace for six months. These bonds were for a sum of Rs. 500/- from each of the second party. 5. The second party went in revision to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, and he has made this reference on the following grounds :— . (1) The Magistrate acted illegally in starting composite proceedings under sec. 107 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 500/- from each of the second party. 5. The second party went in revision to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, and he has made this reference on the following grounds :— . (1) The Magistrate acted illegally in starting composite proceedings under sec. 107 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) He was wrong in making the composite order under both the sections. (3) The decision of the Magistrate on the point of possession was based on no material, and was perverse. 6. I have heard Mr. P. N. Datt appearing for the second party, who supports the reference, and Mr. O. C. Chatterjee for the first party, who opposes it, There can be no doubt that the action of the learned Magistrate in starting composite proceedings under sec. 107 as well as sec. 145 was illegal. If he was satisfied that both the proceedings were necessary, it was his duty to start separate proceedings. The foundation for proceedings under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a preliminary order under sub-sec. (1). The foundation for proceedings under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an order under sec. 112. After an order is made under sec. 145 (1), written statement should be filed by the parties, and then the evidence about the actual possession should be recorded. The Magistrate has to find whether one or the other party was in actual possession on the date of the preliminary order, and if not in possession, whether he was dispossessed within two months from the date before the preliminary order. In proceedings under sec. 107, after the order is made under sec. 112, it is read over to the person against whom it is made, and if he so de6ires, the substance thereof has to be explained to him. It is, therefore, necessary that the proceedings under the two sections should be entirely separate, because if there is only one proceeding, there is every likelihood of confusion being made by the Magistrate. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. The order, which was made on the 26th of September, 1950 was, more or less, an order on the lines of an order under sec. 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That order had to be read over to the second parly, when they appeared in court. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. The order, which was made on the 26th of September, 1950 was, more or less, an order on the lines of an order under sec. 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That order had to be read over to the second parly, when they appeared in court. It was, however, not read over to them. The learned Magistrate also forgot that in a case under sec. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary that it should be proved by evidence that the party who was going to be bound down was doing some overt act from which it could be inferred that a breach of the peace might be committed. The learned Magistrate refers to no such evidence, but only contents himself by saying that by the police report it was proved that there was danger of a breach of the peace from the side of the second party. The order under sec. 188 against the second party is, therefore, altogether unwarranted, and I have no hesitation in setting aside that order. 7. Coming to that part of the order which purports to be under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am also of opinion that without making a proper preliminary order as required by sec. 145 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate had no authority to proceed further. He did not make any order calling upon the parties to file written statements of their respective claims within a time fixed by him. Nor did he state the grounds of his being satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed. The foundation for proceedings under sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also, therefore, lacking. I might have been inclined to send the case back for fresh proceedings in accordance with law, if I were satisfied that it was necessary in the interests of justice. The first party is unquestionably out of possession at present, and the property has been under attachment for over a year. A prel-minary order would have to be made now if the proceedings under sec. 145 are to be started, and so it would be much more than two months after the property has been attached. The first party is unquestionably out of possession at present, and the property has been under attachment for over a year. A prel-minary order would have to be made now if the proceedings under sec. 145 are to be started, and so it would be much more than two months after the property has been attached. It cannot be said definitely from the evidence on the record that even on the date the Magistrate made the composite order i.e. on the 26th of September, 1950, the first party was in possession of the property or had been dispossessed within two months before it. The proceedings are such that a final decision can be given only by a civil or revenue court. Under the circumstances, it would be of no use sending the case back for fresh enquiry in accordance with law. 8. The reference is accepted, and the order of the Magistrate, dated the 30th of December, 1950, is set aside.