JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar, recommending the setting aside of a final order u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure passed by Sri A.C. Patnaik, Magistrate, First Class, Sadar, declaring the first party (opposite party) to be entitled to possession of 1. 97 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 34 of village Maidankel and forbidding disturbance of such possession until eviction in due course of law. 2. The learned Additional District Magistrate has expressed his agreement with the learned trying Magistrate so far as the possession of the opposite party is concerned, but he thinks that the following errors of procedure have been committed by that Magistrate: (i) while passing the Preliminary order u/s 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate did not record the grounds for his being satisfied with the existence of breach of peace; (ii) A copy of the preliminary order u/s 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure was not served at some conspicuous place at or near the land in dispute. 3. So far as the first point is concerned the learned Additional District Magistrate has relied on a recent decision of the Punjab High Court reported in Sri Ram and Others Vs. The State and Others. Apparently his attention was not invited to the earlier decisions of the Patna High Court reported in S.M. Yakub v. T.H. Basu AIR 194 Pat 146 (S.B.), and Nazir Mahton v. Badri Mohtan AIR 1950 Patna 372 where it was held that the failure to record the grounds of satisfaction as required by Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure or the failure to draw up a formal proceeding under that sub-section was only an irregularity if it was clear to the Magistrate that there was apprehension of breach of peace. In the absence of any direct decision of the Court on the question, the subordinate courts of this State should follow the decisions of the Patna High Court in preference to the decisions of other High Courts. The Allahabad High Court also took the same view as the Patna High Court, in Kapoor Chand and Another Vs. Suraj Prasad . 4. Apart from this, the Punjab decision in Sri Ram and Others Vs. The State and Others on which the learned District Magistrate has relied, is clearly distinguishable. The Allahabad High Court also took the same view as the Patna High Court, in Kapoor Chand and Another Vs. Suraj Prasad . 4. Apart from this, the Punjab decision in Sri Ram and Others Vs. The State and Others on which the learned District Magistrate has relied, is clearly distinguishable. There no order u/s 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure was passed by the Magistrate, at all. The Police reported apprehension of breach of peace. The Magistrate made a local inspection and then, instead of drawing up a regular proceeding u/s 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure he merely passed the following order on the 25th May 1956: As it is a case of emergency, I order the land in dispute to be attached pending the decision of this application. The parties have been informed of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the S.H.O. City Rohtak for necessary action and proclamation of this attachment. The parties to put up written statements of their respective claim as respects the facts of the actual possession of the land in dispute on 4-6-1956. The learned Judge of the Punjab High Court observed that such an order will not be an order u/s 145(1) and the attachment of the property in dispute which was done in exercise of the powers conferred by the second proviso to Section 145(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be made unless there was first availed order u/s 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Here however the facts are entirely different. The Police submitted a report for preventive action alleging that there was apprehension breach of peace. On receipt of that report the Magistrate passed the following order on the 24th September, 1957: Whereas it appears from the report of the S.I., Sadar P.S. that a dispute exists between the parties mentioned in the report in respect of possession of Ac. 1.97 dec. of land in village Maidenkel, P.S. Sadar-vide Khata No. 34, the details of which are given below: and whereas I am satisfied that there is apprehension of breach of peace I do hereby direct that notice be issued to the parties to appear in person, or through their pleaders and file their written statements in support of their right to possess the lands in dispute on 31-10-57. They also be further directed to file their statements, affidavits, documents, if any, as required u/s 18(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure amended Act, 1955, on the said date. The disputed lands be attached under the second proviso u/s 145(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, as there is apprehension of breach of peace. The Magistrate has carefully followed the provisions of Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. He has clearly stated that from the report of the Police he was satisfied that there was apprehension of breach of peace, so as to justify taking preventive action u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure This will be 'sufficient ground' for the purpose of Section 145(1) Code of Criminal Procedure It is not always necessary when a proceeding is drawn up u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the police report, that there should be grounds other than the Magistrate's acceptance of the Police report, for the purpose of initiating such a proceeding. Ultimately it depends on the satisfaction of the Magistrate. Merely by accepting the Police report the Magistrate may start a proceeding u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, or he may direct a further enquiry either by himself or by any subordinate Magistrate. In some cases even without a Police report and on the basis of a petition filed by a party and bearing in mind the previous dispute between the parties he may initiate such a proceeding. Hence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what would constitute 'sufficient ground' for a Magistrate to initiate a proceeding u/s 145(1). In the instant case his acceptance of the Police report was itself a sufficient ground. The order of attachment was passed after the preliminary order u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, was made. Hence I find no illegality in the proceeding. 6. As regards the second point, namely, non-compliance with the provisions of Section 145(3), Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Additional District Magistrate has inferred that the preliminary notice was not served at the spot inasmuch as in the copy of the preliminary order forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of the local Police Station it was not expressly stated that the order should be served at the spot apart from service on the parties themselves. It is true that the records do not show that a copy of the preliminary order was actually served at the spot but they undoubtedly show that the lands were duly attached by the Police. The provision for local service of notice was made in Section 145(3) Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to guard against collusive proceedings so that any other person, (apart from the parties mentioned in the Police report or in the petition), if in possession of the land, may enter appearance and object (See ILR Cal 155 at p 197). But once it is found that the notice of attachment of the land in dispute was duly served at the spot it necessarily follows that all persons interested in the land were aware of the fact that a proceeding u/s 145 Code of Criminal Procedure had been started. Under such circumstances the failure to serve the preliminary notice at the spot must be held to be a mere irregularity which will not vitiate the entire proceeding (See also ILR Cal 68). In the written statement also none of the parties appears to have taken up the position that any prejudice was caused to him by the failure to serve the preliminary notice at the spot. 7. I would therefore discharge the reference and affirm the final order passed by the learned Magistrate ( I Class ), Sadar Keonjhar. Reference discharged.