JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Some of the members of the second party are Petitioners. The member first party filed an application on 20-11-1965 that the second party members should be restrained from entering upon the disputed land u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure as he was in possession and the second party members were trying to disturb his possession leading to apprehension of breach of the peace. An ex parte order u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure was issued. On 15-1-1966 the member first party filed an application that the second party members were violating the order u/s 144, Criminal Procedure Code. This was sent for inquiry to the police who reported on 16-1-1966 that the second party members were in possession. On 18-1-1966 the learned Magistrate passed an order converting the proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure into one u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code. Against this order the revision has been filed. 2. Mr. P.V. Ramdas contended that when the police reported that the second party members were in possession, the proceeding u/s 144, Code of Criminal Procedure should have been dropped and it should not have been converted into one u/s 145, Criminal Procedure Code. First party member asserted that there was apprehension of breach of peace. The second party members in their written statements stated that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace and in case there was any apprehension of breach of the peace and in case there was any apprehension, the member first party be bound down u/s 107. Criminal Procedure Code. Police report was silent regarding apprehension of breach of the peace. Police report is not admissible on the question of possession. Even if the police had stated positively that there was no apprehension of breach of the peace, the Magistrate is not bound by the same. The section requires satisfaction of the Magistrate. Police report is a piece of material to assist the Magistrate to form his own decision. Doubtless the Magistrate has not given a clear and reasoned order regarding his satisfaction of the apprehension of breach of the peace. But as is well settled, absence of reasons in the order would not affect his jurisdiction to pass such an order. This Court cannot quash the order if otherwise there are materials on record justifying Magistrate's satisfaction. Doubtless the Magistrate has not given a clear and reasoned order regarding his satisfaction of the apprehension of breach of the peace. But as is well settled, absence of reasons in the order would not affect his jurisdiction to pass such an order. This Court cannot quash the order if otherwise there are materials on record justifying Magistrate's satisfaction. On a perusal of the statements of both parties, It is clear that there was apprehension of breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate's order of conversion is well founded. 3. The revision is wholly without merit and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed