JUDGMENT : Das, J. - This reference made by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, arises out of a proceeding u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The Petitioner Durga Charan Mohapatra was the first party. He was the recorded tenant in respect of the disputed land under the landlord Shyama Sundar Bose. In Execution Case No. 173/40 Kunja Bihari Samantary r(O.P. No. 6, the Tahasildar and agent of the said landlord purchased the property and subsequently on 24-7-1963 sold the said property to the other opposite parties 1 to 5. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner Durga Char an that had along been in possession of the disputed land unaffected by the said auction purchase or private sale by Kunja. The opposite parties 1 to 5 on the other hand claimed that they have been in possession of the disputed property since 24-7-1965 on the strength of their sale-deed from Kunja. 4. In course of the proceedings, both the parties filed affidavits and documents in support of their respective cases of possession. The learned Magistrate on an appreciation of the evidence declared the possession of the opposite parties i to 5 and directed them to be in possession until evicted in due course of law. Against the said order the 1st party preferred a Criminal Revision (No. 69/64) before the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, with a request to recommend to the High Court to set aside the said order. 5. While making a reference to this Court recommending to set aside the said order of the Magistrate, the Additional District Magistrate has not given any reason in support of such recommendation, but has simply drawn the attention of the Court to the reasons given by him n the said Criminal Revision. This, however, is not the proper procedure to adopt in making reference to this Court u/s 438, Criminal Procedure Code. The Court making reference u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure have to follow the procedure laid down in High Court's G.R.C.O. (Criminal), Chapter XIII, Clause 80. The referring Courts are called upon to state the ground upon which in the opinion of such Court the order should be reversed. That not having been done, I had to find out for myself the probable grounds for the reversal of the order of the lower Court. The referring Courts are called upon to state the ground upon which in the opinion of such Court the order should be reversed. That not having been done, I had to find out for myself the probable grounds for the reversal of the order of the lower Court. On a perusal of the judgment, however, it appears that the Additional District Magistrate noticed the following irregularities said to have been committed by the enquiring Magistrate: (a) That the Magistrate accepted certain documents of the second party after hearing of the case was over and deprived the Petitioner of the opportunity to rebut the same. (b) The Magistrate based his findings on the decision in Title Suit No. 50/30/60/63 and the sale-deed dated 21-7-1963. (c) The witnesses who by affidavits support the case of the Petitioner have lands adjoining to the dismayed land whereas the witnesses of the second party have no such adjoining land. 6. Mr. P. Roy, the learned Counsel who supported the reference placed the order-sheet of the learned lower Court. It appears from the order-sheet that on 12-8-1964 the second party filed some documents and the case was posted to 1-9-1264. On that day the Court heard the lawyer of the first party and fixed 1-9-1964 for orders. As the order was not ready, the Court adjourned the case for several dates and finally passed it on 26-11-1964 declaring the possession of the second party Nos. 1 to 5. It is clear from the order-sheet that the second party filed certain documents before the hearing was over and further the first party had enough opportunity to produce any rebutting evidence, if he so intended. Thus, it cannot be said that the order of the Magistrate is vitiated by any defect of procedure. 7. It appears from the judgment of the lower Court that he examined the affidavits of the parties and chose to give preference to the affidavits of the opposite parties. No doubt, be also took into consideration the result of the Title Suit and also the effect of the sale-deed executed by Kunja Bihari in favour of the opposite party, but it is clear from the judgment that he was fully conscious of the legal position that the factum of possession is most essential in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and not the question of title. He has taken into consideration the several affidavits of the witnesses who support the respective parties and gave good reasons to accept the affidavit of the second party and found that the second party Nos. 1 to 5 were in actual possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order. The question whether a particular witness has land in the neighbourhood of the disputed land and as such more weight should be attached to his affidavit is a matter of appreciation of evidence and does not involve any question of law as a point of reference to this Court. 8. While making a Reference to this Court the referring Court should always bear in mind that unless a question of law is involved a Reference would not be proper and no Reference need be made merely on the question of an improper appreciation of evidence. It is not the rule of the Court to interfere with decisions on facts upon evidence except for special reasons, and the referring Courts should make their References subject to this consideration. Since they have to make their Reference in the prescribed form their should state in what particular portion of the order the Court making the Reference considers an error on a point of law to exist. The High Court while dealing with a case of Reference should not be left to make its own efforts to trace out any error of law in the impugned order. In this connection, I would draw the attention of the Referring Courts a case in Fakir Chand Mondal and Others Vs. Madar Mondal and Others. In that case Rankin, C.J. pointed out that the circumstances which the referring Court has always to bear in mind, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 438, Code of Criminal Procedure and the practice as regards reference in case u/s 145 is exactly the same as the practice in any ordinary case, that there ought to be no reference merely upon difference of opinion as to the value of evidence. Even if there appears error of law, reference should Dot be made unless it appears that the error of law is of such a character as to call for interference by higher authority. This ruling has also been followed by the Patna High Court (See Abdul Manir Vs. Even if there appears error of law, reference should Dot be made unless it appears that the error of law is of such a character as to call for interference by higher authority. This ruling has also been followed by the Patna High Court (See Abdul Manir Vs. Kadir Khan and Others, We have already seen that no question of law arises in this case. The decision of the lower Court is based mainly upon an appreciation of evidence There is no merit in this Reference which is accordingly rejected.