ORDER A.H. Khan, J. 1. The main point urged in this revision is that the trial Court without holding that there exists a dispute which is likely to give rise to breach of the peace has taken proceeding under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code and that the finding of the court with regard to the possession of the complainant is also erroneous. 2. The short history of this case is that proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code were started as far back as October 1956, and at one stage, a revision was filed before the High Court against an interlocutory order of the trial Court dated 6-11-1956. In that order the trial court without enquiring into the matter entrusted the possession to the complainant and threatened the opposite party with proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision was allowed and the attention of Magistrate was directed to the fact that it was his duty to record his satisfaction as to the existence of a breach of peace or its likelihood before proceeding further in the matter. He was directed to proceed according to law. After the return of the case, the Magistrate recorded evidence of the parties and held the complainant entitled to land in dispute and passed an order accordingly. Against this order, a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Gwalior which was rejected and now the opposite party has filed-this revision. 3. On a careful perusal of the record, I find that the learned Magistrate has made two mistakes. 4. First, the Magistrate in order to assume jurisdiction under section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code has to satisfy himself about the likelihood of a breach of the peace. The foundation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is an apprehension felt by him with regard to the breach of peace. This the learned Magistrate had omitted to do in his preliminary order dated 6-11-1956, That order was set aside in the previous revision and the attention of the Magistrate was pointedly drawn towards this defect and he was directed to proceed according to law. But it seems that the Magistrate has again failed to record his satisfaction according to clause 1 of S. 145 Criminal Procedure Code for reasons best known to him. But it seems that the Magistrate has again failed to record his satisfaction according to clause 1 of S. 145 Criminal Procedure Code for reasons best known to him. It has been argued before me vehemently that the learned Magistrate has deliberately acted in defiance of the order of the High Court, I put it down to an oversight and do not consider his attitude as symptomatic of intellectual cussedness. 5. The second mistake that the Magistrate has made in this case is that on return or the record from the High Court, he asked the parties to produce their evidence and straight-away recorded the statements of the witnesses produced by the parties. This is again against the provision of the amended section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code under which he was proceeding in the case. What he should have done is that after a preliminary order, he should have required the parties concerned to put In written statements of their claims within a fixed time, and, he should have further required them to put in such document, or to adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evidence of such persons as the parties may, rely upon in support of their claims. This amendment war made in Criminal Procedure Code in 1955 and these proceedings were started in 1956. This amendment shows that the earlier provision requiring a Magistrate to make a prolonged enquiry and to come to a decision was regarded as unsatisfactory and the amendment was in consequence introduced. The Magistrate ought to have proceeded in the case according to the amended procedure and in failing to disregard it totally, he has again erred. 6. For reasons stated above, the revision is allowed. His order dated 15-4-1958 is set aside and the case is again sent to the Magistrate to remove these defects and proceed according to law. Petition allowed.