JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, Ramswaroop, has filed this revision petition under Section 397, Cr.P.C., 1973, against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, dated the 18th September, 1979, in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, can be summonsed as under:- The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur, commenced the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., on an application of Ramswaroop-petitioner against Ramphool-non-petitioner and others. In these proceedings, the learned magistrate attached the disputed land under Section 146 (1), Cr.P.C. and ordered that the land would remain attachment and both these parties would get right to get it decided by a competent civil court. Ramphool and others challenged this order before the Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur. The learned Sessions Judge. Sawai Madhopur accepted the revision petition of Ramphool and others. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that even after passing an order under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C., attaching the property, the magistrate would not become functus officio if the attachment is done on account of imminent danger of breach of peace or urgency and emergency and he is required to decide the question of possession under Section 145, Cr.P.C. by calling upon both the parties to produce the documents and statements including the evidence, if any. The learned Sessions Judge was also of the opinion that no finding on emergency has been recorded by the learned magistrate and, therefore, the order of attachment is unwarranted and uncalled for. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Narendra Jain, has argued that the emergency can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, and in any case, if on account of absence of using word emergency order is set aside; the magistrate should be asked to reconsider the matter on the basis of the material available and, decide whether any emergency exists warranting attachment or appointment of the receiver, as the case may be. 4. 4. So far as the question of taking proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., even after ordering attachment under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. due to emergency is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued even before the learned lower court, that after the decision of the Supreme Court, it is settled law that the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., would continue and would not come to an end simply because attachment has been ordered under Section 146(1), Cr.P.C. on account of imminent danger or breach of peace. 5. Now the question remains, whether the decision of the learned Sessions Judge for quashing the order of attachment on account of the alleged absence of finding of emergency or imminent danger of breach of peace; warrants any interference. Section 146(1) reads as under: "146. Power to attach subject of dispute and to appoint receiver (1) If the Magistrate at any time after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, or if he decides that none of the parties was then in such possession as is referred to in Section 145, or if he is unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was then in such possession of the subject of dispute, he may attach the subject of dispute until a competent court has determined the rights of the parties thereto with regard to the person entitled to the possession thereof: Provided that such Magistrate may withdraw the attachment at any time if he is satisfied that there is no longer any likelihood of breach of the peace with regard to the subject of dispute." It is, therefore, obvious that in order to enable the magistrate to direct attachment of the property in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.C.P., the magistrate should, first, apply his mind to find out, whether the case is one of emergency; the object appears to be that the attachment should not be a routine matter, because it means, that the agricultural land would be taken possession of by the receiver and then auction would deprive both the parties of their possession. This being an extra ordinary action, the legislature had thought it fit to mention, that when the magistrate, at any time, after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, then he can attach subject of dispute. This being an extra ordinary action, the legislature had thought it fit to mention, that when the magistrate, at any time, after making the order under sub-section (1) of Section 145 considers the case to be one of emergency, then he can attach subject of dispute. That being so, the finding of the lower court, that in the absence of the finding of emergency, attachment could not have been ordered, appears to be correct. 6. However, it is necessary when the case is of Section 145, Cr P.C. and when the order of attachment is set aside by the superior court on account of absence of positive finding of emergency, the magistrate should be directed to examine the matter again in order to come lo a conclusion, whether on the facts and circumstances, which exist now when the case goes to the lower court after remand a situation of emergency exists warranting attachment. This is necessary, because it may be, that in a given case, inspite of emergency, the lower court might have failed to use the word, emergency in the order or the suitable word to express, that situation. That being so, I am of the opinion that the Magistrate should re-examine the matter of emergency on the facts and circumstances, which exist no wand decide it afresh one way or the other. 7. The result of the above discussion is, that the revision petition is partially accepted, only to the extent that the magistrate would continue the proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C., and while doing so, the question of emergency, if exists, would also be examined again, after the record is received by him and after the parties are allowed an opportunity to prove or disprove this aspect of the case.Revision Partly accepted. *******