Short Note : 1. Proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 were initiated on an application filed by non-applicant nos. 1 and 2, Budhi and Baijnath against non-applicant nos. 3 and 4. Jagjiwanlal Singh and Jagkaranlal Singh in respect of the disputal land. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on 8.11.1971 passed a preliminary order. The land in dispute was also attached. By his order, dated 14.3.1973, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate found non-applicant nos. 3 and 4, to be in possession of the land in dispute on the date of the preliminary order. The Additional Sessions Judge had observed that in the copies of the revenue record for the years 1956-57 to 1960-61, 1968-69 and 1969-70 the possession of the disputed land was recorded as that of the non-applicant nos. 1 and 2, Budhi and Baijnath. The possession of non-applicant nos. 3 and 4 had been recorded for the first time, in the revenue record for the year 1970-71 with the red ink rind that too, under the signatures of the Revenue Inspector. According to him, the appreciation of evidence adopted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate was wholly perverse and contrary to law. 2. From a perusal of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate it is clear that he was completely obsessed by the entry in favour of non-applicant nos. 3 and 4, in the year 1970-71. He also drew an adverse inference against non-applicant nos. 1 and 2, as they did not take any steps for correction of the entries. He rejected the affidavits filed on behalf of non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 on very flimsy grounds. For so many years prior to 1970-1971, the possession of non-applicants nos. 1 and 2 over the land in dispute was recorded in the revenue record. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have considered as to how the possession of non-applicant nos. 3 and 4 came to be recorded suddenly in the year 1970-71. It was nobody's case that during that year the possession was, in any manner transferred. The main question in. a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the fact of possession. With the overwhelming evidence that was led on behalf of non-applicant nos. 1 and 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order was clearly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. The main question in. a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the fact of possession. With the overwhelming evidence that was led on behalf of non-applicant nos. 1 and 2, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order was clearly perverse and contrary to the evidence on record. By no stretch of imagination could it, therefore, be said that the findings, as have been arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are even in the slightest manner justified from the material on record. Revision allowed.