JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra dated May 31, 1983 whereby the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive), Balotra dated November 2, 1982 attaching the fields in dispute under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code on the ground of emergency was set aside and possession over them was directed to be delivered to non-petitioners No. 1 to 7. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner Narsingh submitted an application in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Executive) on 27. 8. 82 stating therein that he was a Khatedar tenant of agricultural fields bearing Khasras No. 204 and 206 comprising an area nearly of 36 Bighas situate in Mojja Umariai. He had sown the crops in them in 1982. He had also installed a dhani therein, in which he and members of his family resided. The non-petitioners wanted to unlawfully dispossess him from these fields and to take possession over them by force. On 24.8.82, the non-petitioners carne to the fields, asked him to go away from there and threatened him with dire consequences. There was thus a dispute between the parties likely to cause a breach of the peace concerning the fields in dispute. It was prayed that proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code be initiated and due orders be passed. The learned Magistrate sent the application to police station, Samdari with directions to make an enquiry and submit the report. The Station House Officer, consequently held the enquiry and submitted the report that a dispute between the parties existed about the possession of the aforesaid fields, which was likely to cause a breach of the peace. The learned Magistrate thereupon feeling satisfied that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace existed concerning the aforesaid fields drew up the preliminary order on 19.9.82, issued notices to the parties to put in written statement of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession over them and fixed the date of 29.9.82 for that purpose. Again on 10.10.82, the petitioner filed an application stating therein that on 2.10.82, the non-petitioners had forcibly cut the standing crops and took it away. A report of the fit was lodged at the police station. Again on 10.10.82, the petitioner filed an application stating therein that on 2.10.82, the non-petitioners had forcibly cut the standing crops and took it away. A report of the fit was lodged at the police station. A situation of grave emergency had thereby arisen and as such, the fields in dispute may be taken under attachment till the final order in the main proceedings was passed. This time also, the learned Magistrate, directed the police to mike an enquiry and submit the report. The police submitted the report on 30.12.82 stating therein that it was a case of emergency likely to result in some serious incident. The learned Magistrate acting on the police report passed an order on 2.11.82 attaching the fields in dispute and appointed the Station House Officer as the receiver. Aggrieved against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the non-petitioners went in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned judge allowed the revision, set aside the order of the S.D.M. and directed that possession over the fields in dispute be delivered to the non-petitioners. Dis-satisfied with the order of the learned Sessions judge, the petitioner has come up in revision. 3. In assailing the impugned order of the Sessions Judge, it was vehemently contended by Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the whole approach of the court-below was wrong and un- sustainable in law. It was argued that the question whether there was emergency or not so as to justify an attachment under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code rests entirely on the Magistrate's satisfaction. The learned Magistrate had advanced cogent and convincing reasons as to how and why he was satisfied about the existence of emergency. His finding about emergency should not have been lightly interfered with by the learned Sessions Judge. The police had reported about the existence of the emergency and learned Magistrate had felt satisfied on that report. It cannot be, therefore, said that the learned Magistrate acted wrongly or illegally in passing the order of attaching the fields in dispute. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners, submitted that the order of attachment can be passed by a Magistrate only in exceptional circumstances. There was no real dispute between the parties, The petitioner had made a false show of dispute and emergency. The police had openly taken sides with the petitioner. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners, submitted that the order of attachment can be passed by a Magistrate only in exceptional circumstances. There was no real dispute between the parties, The petitioner had made a false show of dispute and emergency. The police had openly taken sides with the petitioner. The learned Sessions judge was, therefore, perfectly justified in setting aside the order of attachment. This Court sitting in revision should not therefore disturb the impugned order of the Sessions Judge. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration. 4. Section 146 is a sort of corollary to Section 145, Cr. P.C. The existence of a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace is the foundation for initiating a proceeding under Section 145, but for attachment of the property under Section 146, Cr. P.C. what is required is the existence of emergency. 5. The effect of attachment may be to deprive the rightful occupier of his possession of the property. And as such, the power of attachment on the ground of emergency should be exercised with great care. The Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and to act with caution and responsibility. This power should not be exercised light-heatedly. The attachment is the drastic remedy and recourse to it should be made only when the circumstances arising in a given case badly need it to prevent violation and blood-shed between the parties. The use of words "if the Magistrate at any time......... , considers the case to be one of the emergency" in Section 146, Cr. P.C. is deliberate and meaningful. It can notes that the existence of emergency is the SINE QUO NON for an order of attachment. In order to find out whether there is an emergency to justify the attachment, the Magistrate must take all the attendant circumstances into consideration and must see that the suggested emergency may not be merely colourable. It is only after the Magistrate is satisfied about the existence of the circumstances making out a case of emergency that he should pass an order for attachment. What material would constitute satisfaction to the Magistrate depends on the situation arising in a given case. No hard and fast rule can be formulated in this regard. It is only after the Magistrate is satisfied about the existence of the circumstances making out a case of emergency that he should pass an order for attachment. What material would constitute satisfaction to the Magistrate depends on the situation arising in a given case. No hard and fast rule can be formulated in this regard. Of course, the satisfaction of the Magistrate is subjective but there must be material on record to justify the satisfaction. Once the Magistrate is satisfied on the material available on record that there is a case of emergency he is perfectly within his power to pass an order of attachment. 6. In the instant case, the Magistrate has acted with care and caution at every stage. When the petitioner moved an application for initiation of the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C., the Magistrate called for report from the police. It is only after the receipt of police that a dispute existed between the parties likely to cause a breach of the peace that the Magistrate decided to proceed under Section 145. Cr. P.C. and drew tip the preliminary order. When the petitioner moved an application for attachment of the property on the ground of emergency the Magistrate did not feel satisfied and again called for a report from police. The police reported that there was an imminent danger for violence and bloodshed between the parties The Magistrate on the receipt of this police report, heard both the parties and only thereafter passed the order for attachment He did not act mechanically on the police report, but applied his mind judicially. All that shows that the Magistrate was careful and conscious to see whether there was a case of emergency so as to pass an order for attachment. 7. The contention of the non-petitioners that the Magistrate did not take into consideration the documents and affidavits filed by them and thus, failed to apply his judicial mind before passing an order of attachment is not tenable. His order is a detailed one stating the various reasons how the emergency was there to justify the attachment. In finding out a case of emergency, the Magistrate relied upon the police report. There is nothing wrong on his part in doing so. The Magistrate may fall upon more than one source to satisfy himself, The police report is one such source. In finding out a case of emergency, the Magistrate relied upon the police report. There is nothing wrong on his part in doing so. The Magistrate may fall upon more than one source to satisfy himself, The police report is one such source. If he felt satisfied on the police report, it cannot be maintained that he acted illegally. 8. The learned Sessions judge was much impressed by the fact that the fields in dispute were in the possession of the non-petitioners and stood in their name in Revenue Records. As such, in the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge, attachment was not called for he cause it would deprive the non-petitioners from their possession. The learned Session judge was obviously in error in having this approach. The essential question for attachment is not the protection of the possession of a party but the maintenance of peace to avoid violence and bloodshed between the parties and prevent the untoward incident likely to take place in view of the grave situation. Moreover, as the effect of attachment is to place the property into CUSTODIA LEGIS, the possession of a court (here through the Receiver) ensures to the benefit of the person, who is ultimately found to be entitled to the possession of the property. The legal possession being in the true owner, the attachment does not operate as dispossession of the rightful owner. The possession is ultimately restored to the party, who is entitled to it at the end of the proceedings. 9. Taking the view that there was no case of emergency, the learned Sessions judge held the attachment unjustified. As pointed out earlier by me, the Magistrate called for a report from police, heard the parties and thereafter passed the order of attachment. He has given reasons as to how he was satisfied that there was an imminent danger. His satisfaction is based on the material on record. It was, therefore, not open to the learned Sessions judge to lightly interfere with the satisfaction of the Magistrate In (1) Prem Kumar v. Banarsi Das (A.I.R. 1933 Lahore 409), it was observed that the question whether there is a state of emergency or not is a matter within the trial Court's discretion and his action in ordering attachment for maintenance of peace should not be lightly interfered with in revision. 10. 10. In (2) Sanwata Ram v. Asha Ram (1977 R.L.W. 360), it was observed - **** 11. It does not appear that the learned Magistrate exercised the powers of attachment in an arbitrary manner. No interference should have been therefore made by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. For the reasons discussed above, I am unable to agree with the learned Sessions judge and maintain his impugned order dated May 31, 1983. As a result, order dated May 31, 1983 is set aside and that of the learned Magistrate dated November 2, 1982 is restored. The learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the proceedings and dispose it so far possible within a period of four months. *******