Heard learned counsel of both sides. A proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. was drawn up by the Executive Magistrate, Nalbari who concluded the enquiry with the finding that possession was with the second party to the proceeding. The first party went up in revision against the order of the trial court. Lear­ned Addl. Sessions Judge heard the revision and found that the first party to the proceeding was in possession of the proceeding land on the date of the preliminary order. So, he Declared possession of the land in favour of the first party to the proceeding. The second party has come up in revision against that order passed in Criminal Revision No. 29 (K)-3 of 1981. 2. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that the learned Magistrate held a local inspection on 18.8.80 and that there­after he recorded evidence and decided the case. According to him the learned Magistrate could not hold such a local inspec­tion before recording of the evidence. Secondly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge depreciated the evidence on record and found that the decision of the learned Magistrate was incorrect and erroneous. He, therefore, came to a different finding after discussing the evidence and passed the impugned order that the second party was in possession of the land. 3. Section 310 Cr. P. C. as mentioned by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge authorises any Judge or Magistrate to visit and inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed or any other place which it is in his opinion nece­ssary to view for the purpose of properly appreciating the evi­dence given at such inquiry or trial. Such a local inspection can be held at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other procee­ding but after due notice to the parties and after such local inspection the judge or Magistrate shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. So, the provisions of section 310 Cr. P. C. contemplate local inspection in connection with enquiry or trial or any other proceeding with respect to an offence committed. Any enquiry necessary in connection with a proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P. C. is contemplated separately u/s. 148 Cr. So, the provisions of section 310 Cr. P. C. contemplate local inspection in connection with enquiry or trial or any other proceeding with respect to an offence committed. Any enquiry necessary in connection with a proceeding u/s. 145 Cr. P. C. is contemplated separately u/s. 148 Cr. P. C. which provides that whenever a local enquiry is necessary for purposes of section 145, section 146, or section 147 a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate may depute any Magistrate Subordinate to him to make enquiry and may furnish him with such written instructions as may seem necessary for his guidance and may declare by whom the whole or any part of the necessary expenses of the inquiry shall be paid. After such an enquiry is made the report of the Inquiring Magistrate may be read as evidence in the case. In a case u/s. 145 Cr. P. C., therefore, a special provision for local enquiry u/s. 148 Cr. P. C. is provided and where there is a special provision for such local inquiry the provisions of section 310 Cr. P. C. as said before will not corns into play in connection with a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P. C. Section 310 will apply in a proceeding arising out of an offence committed. So, it is found that the learned trial court committed an error by .him­self holding a local inspection enquiry before the evidence was taken without having got any other Magistrate deputed for the purpose. It is also to be noted that Section 148 Cr. P. C. authorises only a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magi­strate to depute any magistrate subordinate to him to make the enquiry. The learned Executive Magistrate ought to have referred the matter for local enquiry to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for deputing any other Magistrate to make the enquiry. In that view of the matter there has been an illegality committed by fie trial court. 4. On the other hand, the finding of facts regarding possession arrived at by the trial Court is not found to be perverse or illegal by the revisional Court below. Therefore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have gone so far as to depreciate the evidence and come to a different finding. The scope of the revisional Court is very limited. On the other hand, the finding of facts regarding possession arrived at by the trial Court is not found to be perverse or illegal by the revisional Court below. Therefore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge should not have gone so far as to depreciate the evidence and come to a different finding. The scope of the revisional Court is very limited. I find that the learned revisional court below has also gone wrong in reassessing the evidence and coming to a different finding which culminated in the reversal of the order of the trial Court. It is also found that the learned revisional Court below indu­cted some extraneous matters into the impugned order under para 4 of the judgment which do not appear to have been in evidence. 5. In view of the discussion made above, I find that this revision petition should be allowed and it is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the revisional Court below are hereby set aside and as the learned trial court also commi­tted' illegality, it is thought proper that the case should be re­tried by a Magistrate other than the Magistrate who initially tried the case. The matter is connected with law and order. It is, therefore, ordered that the record will be sent back imme­diately to the learned SDM, Nalbari to try the case himself or to have it tried according to law by any Executive Magistrate other than the Executive Magistrate who dealt with it previously. The evidence on record will form evidence of fresh trial except the memorandum of local inspection put on record by the previ­ous Magistrate. However, in the fresh trial the Magistrate will be at liberty to take the aid of Sec. 148 Cr. P. C. This revision case is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.