( 1 ) IN this petition the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional land Tribunal, Kundapur taluk, under Sec. 345 Crpc. in No. TRI-4403- 77- 78 (LRY-CR-39-1977-78) convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 10 is challenged. The facts as disclosed in the order challenged are that the petitioner entered into the premises of the Tribunal when the Tribunal was engaged in examining the applicant in case No. TRI-4403/1977-78 and smarted talking in a loud voice with the bench clerk and the bench, clerk told him to go out and not to disturb the Tribunal in its proceeding. Even then the petitioner did not go out and continued to talk in a loud voice and the Tribunal admonished him and asked him to go out. The petitioner stood at the door of the hall in which the Tribunal was conducting its proceedings and started saying in a loud voice certain things which were derogatory to the dignity of the Tribunal. Thereupon, the Tribunal called upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Sec. 345 Cr. PC. , gave him an opportunity, took his say and convicted and sentenced him. In my opinion, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal had or had not jurisdiction to proceed under Sec. 345 cr. PC. Sec. 345 Cr. PC. reads as follows:"345 (1) When any such offence as is described in Sec. 175, Sec. 178, Sec. 179, Sec. 180 or Sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and may at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, take cognizance of the offence and, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished under this section, sentence the offender to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid. (2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence. (2) In every such case the Court shall record the facts constituting the offence, with the statement (if any) made by the offender, as well as the finding and sentence. (3) If the offence is under Sec. 228 of the Indian Penal Code, the record shall show the nature and stage of the judicial proceeding in which the court interrupted or insulted was sitting, and nature of the interruption or insult. "it is plain from the above that the power to convict and sentence a person under Sec. 345 Cr. PC. , is conferred on a Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court. Therefore, it is necessary to decide whether a Land Tribunal is a Civil, criminal or Revenue Court, Sec. 2 (9a) of the Karnataka Land Reforms act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines the 'court' to mean the Court of Munsiff within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the land in question is situate. Therefore, a Tribunal does not fall within this definition. Sec. 2 (35) of the Act defines 'tribunal' as the Tribunal constituted under Sec. 48 of the Act. That shows that it is not constituted under the Land Revenue Act and hence, it is certain that it is not a Revenue court. It is certain that it is not a Criminal Court. Therefore, a Land tribunal constituted under the Act is not within the meaning of Civil, criminal or Revenue Court as found in Sec. 345 Crpc. Hence, I hold that the Additional Land Tribunal, Kundapur taluk had no jurisdiction and power to conduct proceedings under Sec. 345 Cr. PC. and convict and sentence the petitioner as has been done in this case. Moreover, in regard to offences laid down in the Act, trial and consequent conviction is contemplated by a Magistrate as per Sec. 125 of the Act. In this view of the matter the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioner by the Additional land Tribunal, Kundapur, have to be set aside. In the result, this petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Land Tribunal, Kundapur, in case NO. TRI-4403-77-78 (LRY-CR-39-1977-78) dated 17-10-1977 on the petitioner under Sec. 345 of the Cr. PC. , are set aside. --- *** --- .