JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - There was a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of Sri Aziz Khan, Magistrate, 1st class which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 150/60. The land in dispute there was plot No. 614 with an area of 89 decimals and plot No. 470 with an area of 1.20 acres, both situated in village Gandapanpali in the district of Sambalpur. 2. The parties filed their written statements and affidavits in the case and the Magistrate instead of deciding the matter himself, referred it to the civil Court u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. The ground for such reference has been stated in the last paragraph of his order and it runs as follows: I, however, feel that the true state of affairs should be thrashed out about detail evidence. As such I refer this to civil court and submit the case record to the Court of Munsif, Sambalpur, u/s 146, and direct both the parties to appear in the Court of Munsif : Sambalpur, on 27.4.1966. Attachment will continue till further orders. This order of reference was passed on 12-4-1966. 3. The Munsif ultimately decided the matter and found that the second party members are in possession of plot No. 470 and the first party members are in possession of plot No. 614. This order of the Munsif was passed on 31-10-1966 in Misc. case No. 41/66. 4. The second party thereupon has filed this criminal revision against the order of the Munsif passed OD a reference u/s 146. 5. The first ground urged is that the reference is bad in law. Section 146(1) runs as follows: If the Magistrate is of opinion that none of the parties was then in such possession or is unable to decide as to which of them was then in such possession, of the subject of dispute, he may attach it, and draw up a statement of the facts of the case and forward the record of the proceeding to a civil court of competent jurisdiction to decide the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession of the subject of dispute at the date of the order as explained in Sub-section (4) of Section 145, and he shall direct the parties to appear before the civil Court on a date to be fixed by him. There is a proviso appended to this Sub-section which is not quoted being irrelevant for the present purpose. Sub-section 1-B of that Section provides that the Magistrate upon receipt of the report from the Munsif, shall proceed to dispose of the proceeding u/s 145 in conformity with the decision of the civil Court. 6. In the penultimate paragraph of the order of reference dated 12-4-1966 passed by the Magistrate he refers to the affidavits of the parties, considers them on merit and comes to a finding that the second party did all agricultural operations in 1955 as in previous year and that the 1st party never possessed the land at any time. This is not the same thing as being of opinion that none of the parties was in possession on the date of the order, nor being unable to decide which of them was in possession. Therefore, the requisite pre-condition for making a reference is apparently wanting. Accordingly the reference, as contended by the counsel for the Petitioner, is bad in law. 7. The opposite party urged that this revision is not maintainable against the order of the Munsif passed on a reference made by the Magistrate u/s 146 as that Section provides that the order of the Munsif shall be final. On a bare reading of Sub-section -B of Section 146, it appears that the finality attaches only to the findings of the Civil Court and keeps the door open to attack the same on other grounds. The illegality of reference and lack of initial jurisdiction of the Munsif to proceed with the matter are lawful grounds on which the Munsif's order may be attacked. There is a decision of this Court in support of this view which is reported in Bijoygobinda Das and 15 Ors. v. Girish Chandra Das and 3 Ors. 32 C.L.T. 166. I am, therefore, of the view that the reference is bad in law and accordingly the order of the Munsif passed u/s 146 is set aside so also the order of the Magistrate making a reference under that section. The revision is accordingly allowed and the Magistrate is directed to take up the proceeding from the stage where he passed the order of reference which is now quashed. He is directed to proceed to dispose of the proceeding u/s 145 in accordance with law. The revision is accordingly allowed and the Magistrate is directed to take up the proceeding from the stage where he passed the order of reference which is now quashed. He is directed to proceed to dispose of the proceeding u/s 145 in accordance with law. This, however, should not mean that he is denuded of his power and jurisdiction u/s 146, but he can exercise the same only on fulfillment of the precondition laid down in that Section.