JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - This revision has been preferred against the order dated 27th November, 1969 passed by Sri G. S. Sharma, Munsif City, Kanpur in Cr. Ref. No. 2 of 1969 being reference under section 146 Cr.P.C. 2. The facts of the case are that shrawan Kumar Gaur applicant moved the Additional City Magistrate, IInd, Kanpur on 29th December, 1968, with the allegation that he was the tenant of a room on behalf of Radhey Shyam and others, opposite parties. it was further alleged by Shrawan Kumar Gaur that he was allowed by Radhey Shyam to live in the room on 20th of November, 1968 for a few days on request, but the opposite parties threw out his house hold goods from the said room on 1st of December, 1968. It was further alleged that Radhey Shyam had forcibly occupied the said room and had assaulted the applicant and his wife, so there is apprehension of breach of peace. The magistrate passed preliminary order on 16th January, 1969 as he was of the opinion that he was unable to decide the question of possession on the basis of the evidence brought on the record and he, therefore, referred the matter of actual possession for determination to the Civil court u/sub-S. (1) of S. 146 Cr.P.C. The Munsif by his order in revision gave a finding that Radhey Shyam was in possession of the premises in dispute on the date of the preliminary order. Radhey Shyam was occupying the premises for and on behalf of Shrawan Kumar. He, therefore, answered the reference and further directed that his finding along with the record of the case be returned to the court of the Magistrate concerned at an early date. This application in revision was preferred against the finding of the Munsif. 3. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that under the provisions of S. 435 Cr.P.C. the Sessions judge or the High Court is competent to revise the order passed by a subordinate criminal court and the Munsif while sitting as a civil court for purposes of S. 146 Cr.P.C. was a civil court and not a criminal court and, therefore, no revision lay under the provisions of S. 435 Cr.P.C. against the finding arrived at by the Munsif on a reference made to him under that Code. It has further been pointed out that the legislature being conscious of this aspect of the matter has incorporated sub-S. (1-D) as a part of S. 146 Cr.P.C. and has prohibited appeal, revision or review of the order passed by the magistrate when a finding is returned to him under the provisions of S. 146 (1-B) Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on a case reported in Farzand Ali v. Shaukat Ali, 1970 A.W.R. 543. 4. So far as the contention is concerned I agree with the preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite parties. S. 435 Cr.P.C. read thus : "435 (1) The High Court or any Sessions judge or D. M. or any S. D. M empowered by the "State Government" in this behalf, may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within the local limits of its or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court and may, when calling for such record, direct the execution of any sentence or order be suspended and, if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation-All Magistrates, whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of S. 437. (2) If any S.D.M. acting u/sub-S. (1) considers that any such finding, sentence or order is illegal or improper, or that any such proceedings are irregular, he shall forward, the record, with such remarks thereon as he thinks fit, to the District Magistrate. (3) (Repealed by Act XVIII of 1923, S. 116). (4) If an application under this section has been made either to oho Sessions judge or D. M. no further application shall be entertained by the other of them." Under the provisions as contained in S. 435 the High Court may examine the record of any proceedings of any inferior criminal court situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction but it cannot examine the record of a civil court even if the reference might have been made under section 146 Cr. P. C under section 6 Cr.P.C. classes of criminal courts have been given and the court of the Munsif is not a criminal court as contemplated by the Code. It is another matter that for a limited purpose a criminal court may have been given power to refer the matter to a civil court under section 146 (1) Cr.P.C. but even for that limited purpose, in my opinion, the court of the Munsif, which is a civil court constituted under the Assam Bengal Civil Courts Act, it will not become a criminal court inferior to the High Court for the purposes of S. 435 Cr.P.C. In my opinion, therefore, the preliminary objection raised has force and it must prevail. 5. As for the second point taken as a preliminary objection in my opinion the Full Bench case although may be applicable on the facts and circumstances of that case but the magistrate has not passed any final order in the case and the Full Bench deals with an order which may be passed by the Magistrate on return of the finding by the Civil Court under section 146 (1-B) Cr.P.C. 6. In the result the preliminary objection is allowed. The revision application as preferred not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Stay order dated 21st January 1970 is vacated.