G.N. PRASAD, J. This application is directed against the order of the learned Subdivisional Magistrate of Patna City dated the 21st April, 1970. The impugned order came to be passed under the following circumstances. 2. On the 25th September, 1969 the opposite party, Sakal Mahto, filed a petition before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate for taking action against the petitioner under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) on the ground that he was in peaceful possession of the disputed lands but the petitioner with ulterior motive had been creating trouble and mischief and so there was a serious apprehension of the breach of the peace and of overt act. This petition of the opposite party was referred to the police for inquiry and report. The police submitted a report to the effect that the claim of the first party was frivolous. After the receipt of the police report the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate recorded an order on the 2nd of February, 1970 for drawing up a proceeding under section 144 of the Code against both the parties. Both the parties filed their respective show cause petitions before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on the 3rd of April, 1973. Thereupon the impugned order was passed on the 21st of April, 1970 whereby the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate "converted" the proceeding under section 144 into one under section 145 of the Code. The present application was filed by the second party, petitioner, in this Court without any loss of time on the 11th May, 1970. 3. At least two defects are apparent on the face of the impugned order. One is that on the 21st of April, 1970 there was no life of proceeding under section 144 which could have been converted into a proceeding under section 145. The period of 60 days commencing from the 2nd February, 1970 when the proceeding under Section 144 was ordered to be drawn up had expired even before the parties had filed their respective show cause on the 3rd April, 1970. The proceeding having already been dead could not be converted into one under section 145 of the Code. 4. The second glaring infirmity in the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is that it gives no impression as to whether the apprehension of the breach of peace was still in existence on the 21st April, 1970. The proceeding having already been dead could not be converted into one under section 145 of the Code. 4. The second glaring infirmity in the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is that it gives no impression as to whether the apprehension of the breach of peace was still in existence on the 21st April, 1970. Before deciding to draw up a proceeding under section 145 of the Code it was the duty of the Sub-divisional Magistrate to keep in mind and to record his conclusion on the point as to whether the apprehension of the breach of the peace between the parties was still in existence. The fact that there was an apprehension of the breach of the peace between the parties at the time when the proceeding under section 144 was ordered to be drawn up is of no avail for this purpose after the period of 60 days commencing from the 2nd February, 1970 had expired. In other words, it was incumbent upon the Sub-divisional Magistrate to apply his mind afresh to the question of apprehension of the breach of the peace between the parties. 5. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed. If the dispute between the parties is still in existence and if on that account there is any fresh apprehension of the breach of the peace between them then it will be the duty of the Sub-divisional Magistrate to take appropriate measures in accordance with law. With this observation this application is allowed. Application allowed.