Short Note : 1. Proceedings were started against Mathuralal and Bhanwarlal under section 145 Cr. PC. Preliminary order was passed on 1-3-78. On 2-3-78 the S.D.M. treated the case as of emergency and attached the subject of dispute. On 11-7-78 Mathuralal made an application that subject of dispute had been attached under section 146, further proceedings under section 145 are not competent, Shri P. C. Gupta, S. D. M. Ratlam took the view that inspite of attachment of subject in dispute, proceedings under section 145 could be continued and a final order can be passed. Revision against this order filed by Mathuralal was rejected and view taken by the S. D. M. is upheld. Correctness of the view taken by the S. D. M. and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge Ratlam is challenged in this revision. 2. Contention on behalf of the applicant is that once an order under section 146 is passed and the property in dispute is attached, then only course open to the Magistrate is to appoint a receiver and the S. D. M. could not proceed further under section 145. Reliance was placed on ; 1978 Cr.LJ. 1316, 1976 Cr.L.J. 2014, 1978 Cr.L.J. 1164, 1978 Cr.L.J 1002, 1977 Cr.L.J. 563, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1150. This view was also taken by me in Cr. Rev. 161/75 Mastibi v. Ghosh Muhammad at Gwalior Bench. 3. Contention on behalf of the non-applicant is that even after an attachment order passed under section 146, the S. D. M. bas to proceed with the enquiry contemplated by section 145 Reliance was placed on 1978 Cr.L.J. 936, 1977 Cr.L.J. 453, 1977 Cr. LJ 2032 and 1978 Cr.L.J 356 (SC). Held: In 1978 Cr. LJ 356 Chandu v. Sitaram their lordships of the Supreme Court inspite of an order of attachment passed under section 146 (1) directed the Magistrate to proceed with the enquiry and conclude it in accordance with the provision of section 145. By implication, therefore, it has to be held that in such an event also their lordships did not consider it necessary that since an attachment order is passed under section 146 (1) further proceedings under section 145 need not take place. Further it has to be held that the existence of an attachment order under section 146 (1) cannot be a bar when enquiry is being held under section 145, 1978 Cr. LJ 1376, 1976 Cr. Further it has to be held that the existence of an attachment order under section 146 (1) cannot be a bar when enquiry is being held under section 145, 1978 Cr. LJ 1376, 1976 Cr. LJ 2014, 1978 Cr. LJ 1164, 1978 Cr. LJ 1002, 1977 Cr. LJ 563, 1976 Cr. LJ 1150 and Cr. Revn. No; 161 of 1975, held impliedly overruled, 1978 Cr. LJ 936. 1977 Cr. LJ 453 and 1977 Cr. LJ 2032 referred to. 1978 Cr. LJ 356 (SC) followed. Revision dismissed.