Short Note : 1. This revision filed by original party No. 2 is directed against the order dated 10th December 1976, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rajgarh in criminal revision No. 92 of 1975, whereby he set-aside the order of the Sub-Division Magistrate Narsinghgarh in case No. 167 of 1974, arising out of proceedings under section 45 Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of agricultural lands bearing Khasra No. 220 area 1.783 hectares and Khasra No. 234 area 2.010 hectares situated in village Sawasy, Tahsil Narsinghgarh. Held : Under the present Code the Magistrate is required to peruse the statements put in by the parties, which means he has to go through them critically and to read thoroughly and carefully. Sub-section (4) casts upon the Magistrate the obligation of hearing the parties and he could not debar a party from exercising his right of audience on the ground that there is documentary evidence in the case or that such party has not filed any written statement in support of his claim. Sub-section (4) also permits both the parties to adduce oral evidence and no order can be passed without examining all the witnesses on their behalf. The Sub-section also empowers the Magistrate to take such further evidence, if any as he thinks necessary. Sub-section (4) does not, however, mean anything more than the Magistrate himself receive evidence actually put before him by the parties and does not require to summon witnesses cited by the parties, whether or not, he thinks, he needs them, even though ordinarily the parties summoning the witnesses should not be denied that right. In a proceeding under this section it is not proper to set up an absolute standard of proof. The Magistrate should make every attempt on a careful examination of the evidence produced by the parties, to find out which party is in possession. In the present case, when the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the material produced before him was not sufficient to enable him to come to a conclusion he should have himself call for further evidence and exercise the power of summoning witnesses to enable him to decide the question of possession. 2. In the present case, when the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate found that the material produced before him was not sufficient to enable him to come to a conclusion he should have himself call for further evidence and exercise the power of summoning witnesses to enable him to decide the question of possession. 2. In the present case, certainly the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not required to go into the question of title, but in order to find out prima facie who was in actual possession of the disputed land he ought to have given an opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence in support of their respective claims. Thus apparently in the present case both the parties did not produce proper evidence on the basis of which a definite conclusion could be reached as to who was in actual possession at the relevant time. Revision allowed. Case remanded.