JUDGMENT : B.N. Misra, J. - This revision is directed against the Order dated 11-12-1980 passed u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Misc. Case No. 162 of 1980, a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, pending in the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Jharsuguda. The Petitioner is the second party and the opposite parties are members of the first party in the aforesaid proceeding. 2. It appears from the records that the disputed land belongs to the Railway Department and the members of the first party who have taken the said land on lease had installed a cabin thereon. The members of the first party have rented out the said cabin to the second party on a rental of Rs. 70/- per month. In the year 1980 the members of the first party asked the second party member to vacate the premises and it is alleged that the second party had agreed to vacate possession on 18-11-1980 on payment of a sum of Rs. 3,500.00 towards the cost of decoration of the said cabin. However, the second party failed to deliver possession of the cabin by the due date. On 17-11-1980 the second party reported to the police that at the instance of the members of the first party two persons had threatened hi in earlier in the day with a knife that unless the second party vacates the premises by the next day he would be stabbed. 3. The aforesaid report of the second party was entered in the Station Diary - vide Station Diary Entry No. 386 Gated 17-11-1980 of Brajrajnagar Police Stations. On 18-11-1980 the police, submitted prosecution report to the Court u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure against both the parties, vide Brajarajnagar P.S. Non-F.I.R. No. 123 of 1980. On 1-12-1980 the learned Magistrate perused the police report and on being satisfied that there was serious apprehension of breach of peace and public tranquility, passed preliminary orders u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. In the same order the learned Magistrate further directed that the cabin should be attached and kept with a receiver and both parties were restrained from entering upon the disputed land and the cabin until further orders. On 15-12-1980 the second party moved the learned Magistrate for vacation of the order of attachment but by order dated 12-1-1981, the learned Magistrate rejected the petition for withdrawal of attachment. 4. On 15-12-1980 the second party moved the learned Magistrate for vacation of the order of attachment but by order dated 12-1-1981, the learned Magistrate rejected the petition for withdrawal of attachment. 4. In his revision petition the second party has assailed the order of attachment dated 1-12-1980 on the ground that the said order is illegal and is not based on a proper consideration of the materials on record. It is further stated that since the second party was in possession of the cabin and the valuable articles stored therein, the order of attachment and appointment of an outsider as a receiver was neither just nor proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. In his counter the first party No. 1 has stated that first party No. 2 has taken possession of the cabin after the second party has vacated the same. It is further alleged that the second patty has removed all his belongings from the cabin before the present dispute between the parties arose and that the second patty has shifted his business to a house nearby. 6. The second party has filed a further affidavit denying the allegation of first party No. 1 that he has vacated the shop house or removed his belongings to another place. The second party also challenges the competence of first party No. 1 to depose as to the facts contained in the counter. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has assailed the order of attachment mainly on the ground that there was no material before the learned Magistrate on the basis of which he could have arrived at a finding that the case was one of emergency justifying attachment. It is also pointed out that the order of attachment itself does not indicate any consideration or finding by the learned Magistrate that a state of emergency existed. On going through the records I find that the learned Magistrate had based his order of attachment on the report submitted to him by the police. The Said police report and the relevant station diary entry are on record. It is clearly stated therein that the second party had reported at the Police Station that on 17-11-1980 he had been threatened by two persons with a knife at the instance of the members of the first party and asked to vacate the premises by the next day. It is clearly stated therein that the second party had reported at the Police Station that on 17-11-1980 he had been threatened by two persons with a knife at the instance of the members of the first party and asked to vacate the premises by the next day. Two police officers including the Officer in-charge of the Police Station visited the spot and found a huge gathering there. The crowd dispersed on seeing the police. The police officers made enquiries and ascertained that strained feelings were existing between the parties for the last about one year. In the month of August, 1980 there was a meeting between the parties and some gentlemen and it was agreed that the second party should vacate the premises by 18th November, 1980. However, on the 17th the second party was threatened by two persons and according to police report, both parties had enlisted the support of antisocial elements in order to achieve their ends. The police report further pointed out that the situation was grave and that serious bloodshed and even murders were apprehended. On the basis of the aforesaid report of the police, the learned Magistrate drew up proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, passed preliminary orders under Sub-section (1) thereof and then proceeded to attach the subject matter of the dispute u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the materials contained in the police report it cannot be said that there was no apprehension of breach of peace or that the case was not one of emergency. The action of the learned Magistrate in initiating proceedings u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and directing attachment of the subject matter of dispute appears fully justified and proper in the circumstances of the case. In his order dated 1-12-1980 the learned Magistrate has considered and applied his mind to the facts disclosed in the police report and thereafter he has passed orders, first u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and then u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the preliminary order u/s 145(1) and the order of attachment u/s 146(1) are contained in the same order, it appears, the learned Magistrate did not restate the very same facts which justified action both under Sections 145 and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the preliminary order u/s 145(1) and the order of attachment u/s 146(1) are contained in the same order, it appears, the learned Magistrate did not restate the very same facts which justified action both under Sections 145 and 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the learned Magistrate cannot be assailed on the ground that it is based on no materials or that it had been passed without a proper consideration of the materials on record. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the second party that the order of attachment dated 1-12-1980 cannot be sustained in law in as much as the law contemplates two separate orders, one u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and the other u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Magistrate acted illegally in combining the preliminary order with the attachment order. A similar point had been raised in a case reported in Theothil Xes and Anr. v. Ghupan Bkka 1977 C.L.R. (Cri) 172, where it was held- There is nothing in the said two sections or in the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent a Magistrate to pass the said two orders in the same strain and in the same sitting, the order u/s 146(1) just following the order u/s 145(1), Code of Criminal Procedure as in this case. The aforesaid decision fully applies to the facts of this case. Here the learned Magistrate has passed the order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter he has directed attachment of the subject matter of dispute and appointment of receiver u/s 146, Code of Criminal Procedure, in passing the attachment order after the preliminary order the learned Magistrate cannot be said to have acted illegally or with material irregularity. This point urged on behalf of the second party must therefore fail. 8. Accordingly this revision is dismissed. It appeals horn the records that a lot of valuable articles have been kept under attachment and therefore it would be proper that the learned Magistrate shall proceed to dispose of Criminal Misc. Case No. 162 of 1980 within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The lower Court records be sent back immediately. Final Result : Dismissed