JUDGMENT 1. - On February 16,1982 Budha Ram filed an application under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Negaur to the effect that in Khasra No. 405/1856 there was a 'Katani Marg' used by the villagers from time immemoral and that there is no other way available to the persons going from village Modi to Mand was and to he fileds on the other side of the 'basdas' on the land encroached by Baldeo Ram and his brother Heera Ram in which the way in question passes. It was also contended that after the non-petitioner's closing the way, people made another way in the nearby area but that portion of the land has also been encroached upon by others and therefore, there is now no way left open to the passers by from village Medi to Mandwas and to the persons having their fields is the vicinity. Prayer for passing an order under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of apprehension of imminent danger and injury of serious kind to the public at large was made The learned Magistrate sent the application to the Station House Officer, Bhadra. Notice was issued to the non-petitioners to show cause as to why proceedings under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be not initiated against them. The non-petitioners appeared in the Court and filed a reply of denial. According to them 'Bada' in question was in possession of Baldeo Ram for he last fifteen years and the 'Katani Marg' existing therein has been closed long back. It was also submitted .hat the villagers were using the way in the western side of the 'Bada' of Baldeo Ram and therefore, there was no inconvenience to any body.The police investigated into the matter and prepared a map in the presence of the patwari. The statements of the parties and the patwari were also recorded. The learned Magistrate, in view of the material produced before him on the police enquiry; held it to be a fit case in which steps for passing an interim order under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be taken.The learned Magistrate allowed the application under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the non-petitioner Baldeo Ram to remove his 'Bada from the Katani Marg' in khasra No. 405/1956. 2. Being aggrieved by that order Baldeo Ram Preferred a revision petition in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur. The learned Judge by the impugned order dated August 16, 1982 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate under section 142 of the Code of Criminal procedure. 3. The petitioner Budha Ram has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court against the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner that despite there being an admission by Baldeo Ram that there was a way in existence in the 'Bada' in his possession, the learned Judge did not consider it a fit case in which interim steps under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should have been taken by the learned Magistrate. Mr. Choudhary vehemently argued that from the statement of the Patwari the site inspection memo and the inspection note prepared by the S.H.O., it is evident that there was eacroachment by Baldeo Ram on the 'Katani Marg' and therefore, the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the way bad been closed for the last fifteen years and the encroachment has been regularised cannot be said to be based on any material on record. 5. Controverting these contentions, Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the non-petitioners Baldeo Ram and Heera Ram submitted that provisions of Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be resorted to by the Court only when there is any basis for proceedings under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. According to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate has proceeded with the case as if he was to decide a point about any imminent danger of public peace and has failed to look to the provisions of Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its Proper perspective. 7. According to the learned counsel, when the petitioner has come with a specific case that, on the date of filing the application under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the way in question was not available to the public, there was no question of any immediate steps to be taken under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To substantiate his contention Mr. To substantiate his contention Mr. Bhansali placed reliance on the principles enunciated in the case of Mirza Mohammad v. Emperor and others, AIR 1937 Lahore, 101 . 8. The pertinent question emerging for decision before this Court is, whether there were circumstances before the Court to arrive at a conclusion that there was imminent danger or injury of a serious kind to the public, calling for an order under section 144 of the code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has discussed in detail the material before him to arrive at a conclusion that such an order was required. I am constrained to say that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not looked into the affidavits of Baldeo Ram and his statement during the investigation as well as the statement of the Patwari Jahoor Deen in their proper perspective. When there is admission by Baldeo Ram for existence of 'Katani Marg' in the land in question it was a matter of enquiry before the Magistrate as to when the way was actually closed. From the statement of Patwari, it is evident that out of the two 'Badas' of Baldeo Ram, he could show to him the papers relating to one only, stating that the papers concerning the other were at his house Mr. Bhansali could not point out any material even today to show that both the Badas of Baldeo Ram shown in the map, in one of which the 'Katani Marg' existed and had been closed were regularised in his name. 9. In such circumstances, the definite finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge about the land in which 'Katani Marg' passes having been regularised in favour of Baldeo Ram cannot be said to be based on the material on record. 10. The authority cited by Mr. Bhansali does not help him in this case. In that case his Lordship was dealing with the scope of Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were pleased to observe that the serious injury or the imminent danger contemplated by S. 142 refers to the injury or danger emanating from those things themselves which are specified in Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the 'Katani Marg' had already been closed prior to the filing of the petition under section 133 Cr. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the 'Katani Marg' had already been closed prior to the filing of the petition under section 133 Cr. P.C. no relief could have been given under section 142 Cr. P.C. The argument has no force. It is only because of the obstruction of the right that the aggrieved party has taken recourse to the Court. His Lodship in view of the facts and circumstances of that case was of the opinion that the impugned order appeared to have been necessiated by an apprehension of the breach of peace on account of the obstruction, caused by the persons proceeded against, in a public way. 12. In the present case, the petitioner has come with a case of imminent danger and an injury of serious kind to the public because of the obstruction created in the way and therefore, it cannot be said to be a case not falling within the ambit of Section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. In the case of Ramji and another v. The State and others, 1978 Cr.L.J. MOC 193 (All.) the question about the exercise of power under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came for consideration and it was observed that the Magistrate should exercise the discretion on the basis of the material placed before him and it is not possible to lay down any inflexible rule as to the sufficiency of the material upon which a Magistrate ought to be satisfied. This must vary with the facts and circumstances of each case. 14. The reasonings given by the learned Magistrate appears to be based on sound reasonings and the interim order passed by him under section 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not call for any interference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 15. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur is set aside and that passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagaur is restored.Revision allowed. *******