DAVE, J.—This reference comes on the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, dated 9.3.61. 2. The facts giving rise to it are that on 13.8.59 one Kaluram, who will be referred hereinafter as "the applicant," presented an application in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. against six persons, who will be referred hereinafter as "non-applicants." It was stated by the applicant that certain agricultural plots of land whose boundaries were given in the application and which were irrigated by a well called Amratia in village Siwana, were comprised within the jagir of one Vijairaj, but those plots were cultivated by him, Guman Khan and Surajmal and they were in their cultivatory possession for a long time. Vijairaj had filed a false case against him under sec. 147 and 504 I.P.C. in the court of Second Class Magistrate, Siwana, in order to dispossess him from the said lands, but it was still pending in that court. It was further alleged that on 12.8.59 when the applicant was ploughing some fields for growing wheat crop, the non-applicants entered the disputed property and asked the applicant to vacate the fields. They also threatened him with violence and if certain persons had not intervened, he would have been done to death. It was also alleged that the non-applicants had tried to damage his crop which was standing on a portion of the disputed property. It was prayed by him that there was an apprehension, of the breach of peace and therefore proceedings should be taken under sec. 145 Cr. P. C, that the disputed property may be attached meanwhile and eventually restored to his possession. 3. On receiving this application, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate forwarded it to the police station, Siwana, for enquiry and necessary action. After making some enquiry, the police reported on 10.9.59 that Bajri crop was standing on a part of the disputed property, that each party claimed that the said crop was grown by it, that Vijairaj had taken proceeding against the applicant in Tehsil Siwana for his ejectment but it was still pending and therefore it was prayed that the disputed property should be attached under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. till the decision of the case pending before the Tehsildar. It appears from the record that no order was passed by the Magistrate on this report. 4. 145 Cr. P. C. till the decision of the case pending before the Tehsildar. It appears from the record that no order was passed by the Magistrate on this report. 4. On 17th October, 1959, the applicant presented another application before the District Magistrate, Banner, under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. In this application, Vijairaj was also impleaded as a party besides the six non-applicants mentioned in the application presented before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It was stated by the applicant that he had presented an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, but it was pending and no progress was made, because the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was on long leave. It was again asserted by the applicant that the disputed land was in his possession, that the non-applicants were preventing him from harvesting the crop which was ripening, and that if proper action was not taken against the non-applicants, he would be put to a heavy loss. The District Magistrate was requested to take legal action in the matter and it was also requested that in case the applicant was not permitted to reap the crop, a receiver should be appointed and he should be directed to get the crop harvested and keep it in proper custody. It was further requested that the applicant should be permitted to sow the next crop on other fields which he had already ploughed and which formed part of the property in dispute. 5. The District Magistrate called for the record from the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, and after going through the same, passed an order to the effect that the standing crop on the field be attached and the Station House Officer, Siwana, be asked to auction the same and deposit the sale-proceeds in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The record was then ordered to be returned to the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra. 6. On 11.12.59, Kaluram again presented an application in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, saying that his application under sec. 145 Cr. The record was then ordered to be returned to the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra. 6. On 11.12.59, Kaluram again presented an application in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, saying that his application under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. was pending in his court, that the sale-proceeds of the Bajri crop, which was auctioned by the order of the District Magistrate, was in deposit with the court, that he had grown wheat crop on the remaining part of the field, that the non-applicant had again arrived at the field on 9.12.59 and threatened him with violence in order to eject him, that the apprehension for breach of peace was continuing and therefore the court should take action for prevention of the breach of peace and that the wheat crop should be taken under attachment and a receiver should be appointed. 7. It appears that no immediate action was taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on this application and it was ordered to be put up on 22.12.59. The order-sheet of 22.12.59 shows that the matter was adjourned to 24.12.59 without giving any reasons. On 24.12.59, the applicant was present and yet the case was adjourned to 29.12.59 on the ground that the court-time was over. It may be observed here that proceedings under 145 Cr. P.C. are meant to be taken immediately in order to prevent breach of the peace if there is such an apprehension and therefore the case should not have been repeatedly adjourned without giving any reason. 8. It appears that the case was taken up on 29.12.59 and after observing that there was apprehension of breach of the peace, the Magistrate proceeded to pass an order that the fields in dispute comprising of Khasra Nos.444 to 448 A be attached and a receiver be appointed so as to avoid any trouble. The Tehsildar, Siwana, was directed to appoint a receiver. 9. The record shows that on 2.1.60, one of the non-applicants Vijai Raj presented an application saying that the application presented by Kalu Ram was false, that it was his crop which was standing and that if the crop is attached, it would be ruined. The Magistrate ordered a copy of this application and the affidavit to be given to the applicant and fixed 4.1.60 for arguments. The Magistrate ordered a copy of this application and the affidavit to be given to the applicant and fixed 4.1.60 for arguments. On 4.1.60, both the parties were present but the Magistrate adjourned the case to 8.1.60 with the observation that both the parties wanted time for arguments. On 8.1.60, he again adjourned the case with the remark that the parties wanted a day more. Thereafter, on 8.2.60 he recorded an order to the effect that he had gone to the site and found that the opposite party, Vijai Raj, was in possession of the fields. He asked the applicant to show how he was in possession of the fields and to produce his witnesses but he could not produce any witnesses. Then, he proceeded to observe that from local inquiry he was satisfied that there was no dispute existing about the possession of the Amratia Bera and there was no likelihood of the breach of peace. With these remarks, he rejected the application. 10. Aggrieved by this order dated 8.2.60, the applicant presented a revision application in the court of the Sessions Judge, Balotra. It is reported by the learned Sessions Judge that the sub Divisional Magistrate did not follow the procedure laid down in sec. 145 Cr. P.C, that the parties were not called upon to put in their written statements and that without any material on record the Magistrate dropped the proceedings by saying that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. He has therefore recommended that the order passed by the Magistrate should be set aside and he should be directed to proceed in the matter according to law. 11. The learned Sessions Judge has also forwarded the explanation of the Magistrate as required by Rule 80 of the General Rules (Criminal). In the explanation given by the Magistrate he has stated that after site-inspection, he was satisfied that there was no likelihood of breach of peace,that no preliminary order was drawn in the case and the order of attachment was kept in abeyance by him for making a local inquiry, that when he went to the field, he found Vijairaj in cultivatory possession and since the applicant did not produce evidence, he thought there was no likelihood of breach of peace and dropped the proceedings. 12. 12. It is obvious that explanation offered by the learned sub-Divisional Magistrate is far from satisfactory and he has made a vain attempt to justify a wrong order. 13. It may be pointed out that in the first place he has not noted in his reply whether any amount relating to the sale-proceeds of the Bajri crop was in deposit in his court, and if so, whether it has been returned to anyone of the two contending parties. I any amount was in deposit in his court, as urged by the applicant, it was his bounden duty to make a proper order about it. It was not enough for him to drop the proceedings. It may be next pointed out that he has not given any satisfactory explanation as to under what provision of law he passed another order dated 2.1.60 to keep his earlier order dated 29.12.59 in abeyance. It appears that neither the sub-Divisional Magistrate nor even the learned District Magistrate cared to proceed in the matter according to the procedure laid down in sec. 145 Cr. P.C. They do not even seem to have cared to read that section and they have proceeded in the matter according to their own personal notions. Sec. 145 Cr.P.C. requires that whenever a District Magistrate, Sub- Divisional Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class is satisfied from a police report or other information, that a dispute, likely to cause a breach of the peace, exists concerning any immovable property, it is incumbent upon him to make an order in writing stating the grounds of his satisfaction about the apprehended breach of peace. He should draw up a preliminary order and then call upon the parties concerned in the dispute to attend the court in person or by pleader within a time to be fixed by him. He should further call upon them to put in written statements of their respective claims| as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute, and also to put in documents, or to adduce by affidavits the evidence, on which, they want to rely in support of their claims. He should further call upon them to put in written statements of their respective claims| as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute, and also to put in documents, or to adduce by affidavits the evidence, on which, they want to rely in support of their claims. Thereafter he should decide as to which of the contending parties was in possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order and also see if any of them was forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within 2 months preceding the date of that order. 14. It is clear from the narration of facts given above that after the police made its report on 10.9.59, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed no order at all, even though the Station House Officer had supported the applicants apprehension about breach of the peace. It should be appreciated by the Magistrate that if an action is to be taken under sec. 145 Cr. P.C., it must be done without any delay; otherwise the whole object is likely to be frustrated. The applicant presented his application on 13.8.59 and the police also took a very long time in reporting on 10.9.59. Even then, the Magistrate took no care to pass any order on the police report. The applicant had to put in another application before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate was prompt enough to call the record from the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and to pass an attachment order, but unfortunately he also did not care to follow the procedure laid down by law, and dealt with the case as if it was an administrative matter. Having called the record to his own court, he should have passed a proper preliminary order and proceeded in the matter, according to law, himself. In case he could not find time to hear the case or if for any another reason it was necessary to send the case back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he should have directed him to proceed in the matter according to law. It was unfortunate that even after Dist. Magistrate remanded the case,the Sub-div. Magis. took no action and the applicant had to present a third application on 11.12.59. This was twice adjourned as pointed out above without any reasons. It was unfortunate that even after Dist. Magistrate remanded the case,the Sub-div. Magis. took no action and the applicant had to present a third application on 11.12.59. This was twice adjourned as pointed out above without any reasons. On 29.12.59, the Magistrate proceeded to pass a preliminary order and an order of attachment, but he did not call upon the parties to put in their written statements about their respective claims. On 2.1.60, he passed an order to keep his earlier order in abeyance at the instance of the opposite party and thus the procedure laid down by law was again thrown to the winds. Then, it further appears from his orders dated 4.1.60 and 8.1.69 that the parties wanted time for arguments. It is not easily understandable how the Magistrate could proceed to hear the arguments without any written statements on record. At any rate, the case was adjourned to 9.1.60 and nothing seems to have been done on that date. The learned Magistrate has referred to his inspection of 22.1.60, but the record does not show if any prior notice of his visit to the site, was given to the applicant. He has not prepared any note of his site-inspection. It is again not easy to understand how the Magistrate was able to decide by a mere inspection of the field that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace left on that date. It seems that he found Vijai Raj or his supporters at the field and so he jumped to the conclusion that he was in possession of the property and he made a short-shift of the case by dropping it on the ground that there was no apprehension of breach of peace. Moreover, he ought not to have relied only upon the statement of the non-applicant, Vijai Raj, or his supporters. He should have called upon both the parties to put in written statements, affidavits or other evidence according to law. The Magistrate says that he called the applicant and asked him to produce witnesses about the incident of 9.12.59. It is however not clear how the applicant was called and there is no note about what he stated, on that particular date. Even if the applicant were called, he could not produce his witnesses all at once. The Magistrate did not record either the applicants statement or that of non-applicant, Vijai Raj. It is however not clear how the applicant was called and there is no note about what he stated, on that particular date. Even if the applicant were called, he could not produce his witnesses all at once. The Magistrate did not record either the applicants statement or that of non-applicant, Vijai Raj. He drew up his order dated 8.2.60 on the basis of his recollections of what he had seen on 22.1.60. The point for determination before him was as to which party was in possession on the date of the preliminary order and whether any party was unlawfully dispossessed within two months preceding the date of the preliminary order. He was not to decide as to who was in possession on the date of his site inspection. He ought to have realised that it was his duty to proceed in the matter according to the procedure laid down by law, and not according to his own whims or caprices.) I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has proceeded in the matter in an arbitrary manner and dropped the proceedings abruptly, without the least respect for observing the law which it was his duty to follow. It may be clarified in the end that the remarks of this Court should not be construed as casting any reflection on the merits of the case. 15. The reference is therefore allowed. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Balotra, dated, 8.2.60 is set aside. The case be sent back to him with direction to proceed in the matter according to law and in the light of the observations made above.