Order The petitioner in this revision petition was the first party in proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 109 of 1969-70 in the Court of the Sub-Divisionl Magistrate, Nanjangud. The respondents in this Criminal Revision Petition were the members of the Second Party, in the said Criminal Miscellaneous case. After both the parties had filed their statements, affidavits and documents, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate made an order on 22nd October, 1969, holding that he was convinced that the second party members are in possession of the lands in dispute; he directed the first party to establish his right in a competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said order, the first party member has filed this revision petition. I have heard Sri Gouley the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Ramachandra Rao, the learned Advocate for the respondents. It has been pointed out by this Court, more than once, that while making an order like this under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate should refer (at least briefly), to the nature and contents of the documents produced by the parties and give his reasons for either accepting or rejecting such documents In the present case, the learned Magistrate has stated as follows: “Heard the Counsels of both the parties. Perused the statements, affidavits and documents etc. filed by the parties. On perusal of the records I am convinced that the second party members are in possession of the lands in dispute and therefore I hold that second party members are in possession of the lands in dispute and it is quite open to the first party member to establish their rights in a competent Court of civil jurisdiction……….” Before the order portion, there is, no doubt, a reference to the documents filed by the parties; but, there is absolutely no discussion of the contents of those documents, nor a disclosure of any reason for the learned Magistrate for either accepting or rejecting those documents. It is not enough for a Magistrate merely to state that on a perusal of the records he is convinced that a particular party is in possession. The order must disclose the grounds on which or the reasons for which, the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that a particular party was in possession at the relevant time. It is not enough for a Magistrate merely to state that on a perusal of the records he is convinced that a particular party is in possession. The order must disclose the grounds on which or the reasons for which, the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that a particular party was in possession at the relevant time. It may also be pointed out that in an order to be passed under sub- section (4) of section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, what has got to be decided is the question whether any and which of the parties was in possession, at the date of the preliminary order; under the second proviso in sub- section (4), it is stated that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has within two months next before the date of the order under sub- section (1) been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, the Magistrate may treat the party so dispossessed as if he had been in possession at the date of the preliminary order. The order under revision which suffers from the infirmity indicated above, is set aside. The learned Magistrate will proceed to decide the case afresh, in the light of the observations made above and after giving an opportunity to both the parties to produce such further documents as they may desire and addressing arguments afresh. The learned Magistrate will dispose of the case as expeditiously as may be practicable. S.V.S. ----- Order set aside; case remitted.