Rangarajan, J. ( 1 ) AN interesting question of procedure, viz. , whether affidavits in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code should be attested by the very Magistrate trying those proceedings or by some other Magistrate, arises for consideration in this reference, which has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the following circumstances:- The admitted facts are that the affidavits filed by the first party in the proceedings before the First Class Magistrate (Mr. B. N. Chaturvedi) were attested by Magistrate, First Class, Delhi other than Shri B. N. Chaturvedi, who was trying the proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, left them out of consideration to reach the conclusion that he did regarding the possession of the disputed properties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has persuaded himself to refer the matter to this Court because, in his view the affidavits filed by the first party were in compliance with law and had to be taken into consideration. ( 2 ) IN the first place, it is necessary to notice that it was only by way of an amendment to Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code, that the Magistrate was permitted to consider evidence in the shape of affidavits. The former sub-section (4) of Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code did not enable him receive evidence by way of affidavits, but he was so permitted by amending Act XXVI of 1955 which substituted sub-section (4) of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Cede, which reads as follows :- " (4) Inquiry as to possession--The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any such parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, persue the statements documents and affidavits, if any, so out in, hear the parties and conclude the inquiry, as far as may be practicable, within a period of two months from the date of the appearance of the parties before him and, if possible, decide the question whether any and which of the parties was at the date of the order before mentioned in such possession of the said subject. ( 3 ) SECTION 145 of Criminal Procedure Code does not indicate the manner in which the affidavits have to be sworn. ( 3 ) SECTION 145 of Criminal Procedure Code does not indicate the manner in which the affidavits have to be sworn. Section 4 of the Indian Oaths of 1873, reads as under :- ( 4 ) AUTHORITY to administer oaths and affirmations:-The following Courts and persons are authorised to administer by themselves or by an officer empower by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers imposed or conferred upon them respectively by law : (A) All Courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence ; (b) The Commanding Officer of any Military, Naval or Air Foree station or ship occupied by troops in the service of Government: Provided- CD that the oath or affirmation be administered within the limits of the station, and (2) that the oath or affirmation be such as a justice of the Peace is competent to administer. ". ( 5 ) BY Amending Act XXVI of 1955, Sections 510 A and 539aa Were also placed on the Statute Book, which read as under :- "510a. Evidence on affidavits- (1) The evidence of any person whose evidence is of a formal character may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions, be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code. (2) The Court may if it thinks, fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any such person as to the facts contained in his affidavit. " (Emphasis added) " 539aa. Authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn : (1) An affidavit to be used before any Court other than a High Court under Section 510a or Section 539 AA may be sworn or affirmed in the manner prescribed in Section 539 or before an) Magistrate. (2) The court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended. " (Emphasis added ). ( 6 ) THE question posed in this case has to be answrred by refeence to the ambit of Section 510a, reference to which has been made in Section 539 AA, whether evidence by way of affidavits retarding possession, in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is evidence of a formal nature or not. " (Emphasis added ). ( 6 ) THE question posed in this case has to be answrred by refeence to the ambit of Section 510a, reference to which has been made in Section 539 AA, whether evidence by way of affidavits retarding possession, in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, is evidence of a formal nature or not. C. B. Bhargava, J. took the view in Hemad v. State of Rojasthan that evidence on affidavits concerning possession which fells for decision in proceedings under Section 145 of Code of Crimiral Proceedure, is not evidence of a formal character. If this view were correct, then it will lead to the necessity of Magistrates seized of disputes under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code having themselves to attest affidavits filed before them in the ccuse of such inpuiry It would be needless to add that the most obvious censequerce of It is would be that persons living in distant places also have to appear before the very Magistrate who tiles the preceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Cods merely the purpose of suscribing to afficavits to be filed before such. Magistrate in the ccurse of such an inquiry in order that the concerred Magistrate be in a petition to attest such affidavits. lt dces not take much though to say that the very object in providing for a speedy irquily under Section 145 of Crimiral Procedure Cede would not be served if this resiricted view of the expression formal employed in secticn 51ca of the Crininal Procedure Cede were adopted. ( 7 ) IN construing any expression it is always good to remember that the expression takes colour from its context. In the context in which these amendments were made to the Criminal Procedure Code, some of which have been REFERRED TO earlier, it would be pertinent to notice that in bese amendments, evidence by way of affidavits was allowed to be led in order to secure the speedier disposal of cases. If it is remembered, in this context, that affidavits were enabled to be received in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code by the very amending statute, namely. If it is remembered, in this context, that affidavits were enabled to be received in proceedings under Section 145 of Criminal Procedure Code by the very amending statute, namely. Act XXVI of 1955, which itself provides for affidavits being attested by Magistrates other than the Magistrate trying the proceedings, the conclusion, to my mind, i irresistible that affidavits before Magistrates trying cases under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code could receive affidavits inevidence attested by other Magistrates as well. I am happy to find that Justice Narula of the Punjab High Court has come to the fame conclusion, which I have reached, in Ahmad Lin v Abdul Salem Narula, J. not only dissented from the decision of Bhargava. J. in A I R. 1966 Rajasthan 4 but also that of Kailash Prasad, J. in A. I. R. 1963 Allahabad 256, whom Justice Bhargava followed. ( 8 ) MY attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Judicial Commissioner, C. Jagannadhacharyulu in Leitunthem Bidku Singh and others v. Khanigirakpam Ibabi Singh and others. Jagannadh acharyulu J. C. has REFERRED TO the amendment of sub section (4) of section 145 and Section 510a of the Criminal Procedure Code in understanding the expression formal , he has also REFERRED TO the various meanings given to the same in the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, such as "according to form or established mode", "relating to form", "ceremonious, punctilio is methodical", having the form only", "having the power making a thinkiag what it is", "essential", and "proper". I can find no impediment at all in the matter of reading the expression formal" in such a manner as it would sub-surve the main purpose of the amendment which was brought into the Statute Book by Act XXVI of 1955. The reference is, therefore, accordingly accepted and proceedings will be remitted back to the trying Magistrate for disposal according to law. Both the parties will appear before the learned. Magistrate on 30th March, 1970.