JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - These two revisions arise out of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 97 of 1979 of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Dhenkanal. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the cases are heard analogously and his common judgment will govern both of them 2. The proceeding u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short), initiated by the learned Executive Magistrate, is in respect of extensive cultivable lands. The petitioner, who is the first party, claims to be the adopted son of deceased Bichhamali Dhal, widow of late Rusananda Dhal. Kalandi Charan Jena, a member of the second party, is the brother of deceased Bichhamali Dhal. His claim is that his son Copal Chandra Jena ali is Dhal is her adopted son. During the pendency of the proceeding, a receiver was appointed in respect of the subject of dispute. Bichhamali Dhal, herself a member of the second party when alive, made an application to the effect that she was old and starving and so for her maintenance a sum of Rs. 2,000/- should be given to her. Upendra Kumar Dhal opposed the petition and alternatively prayed that if maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- would be given to Bichhamali Dhal, an equal amount should also be given to him for maintenance. After hearing both parties, the learned Executive Magistrate by order dated 8-6-1983 allowed the petition of Bichhamali Dhal and directed that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- shoud be paid to her for her maintenance. He refused the alternative prayer of Upendra Kumar Dhal. 3. Much later, Kalandi Charan Jena submitted a petition to the effect that Bichhamali Dhal was lying seriously ill and had been admitted as an indoor patient in the S. C. B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack. So a sum of Rs. 4,500/-necessary for her tteatrrent should be paid to her. The learned Executive Magistrate directed payment of sum of Rs. 600/- 4. Bichhamali Dhal died. A petition was filed by Gopal Chandra Jena alias Dhal, claiming to be her adopted son, for payment of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in order to perform her funeral rites the learned Executive Magistrate directed payment of a sum of Rs. 1,2 0, by order dated 25-5-1985. 5. 600/- 4. Bichhamali Dhal died. A petition was filed by Gopal Chandra Jena alias Dhal, claiming to be her adopted son, for payment of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in order to perform her funeral rites the learned Executive Magistrate directed payment of a sum of Rs. 1,2 0, by order dated 25-5-1985. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases has urged that the impugred orders for payment were without jurisdiction, because, Section 145 of the Code does not provide for payment of maintenance or for payment to meet funeral expenses of parties thereto. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has urged that in case a receiver has been appointed u/s 146(2), such payment can be made in analogy of the provisions of Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, no order was passed u/s 146(1) and no receiver was appointed under Sub-section (2) thereof. It is suffice to say that Section 145 does not make any provision for making payments to the parties thereto out of the income of the subject of dispute. It is, therefore, patent that the learned Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without being supported by any provision of law or any authority. He had no inherent powers under the Code to pass such orders, Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be supported in law. I am told at the Bar that the payments have already been made and the exercise is now purely academic. The learned Executive Magistrate should, however be impressed that instead of passing such orders, he should do well to dispose of the proceeding, which is pending since 1979, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record under Intimation to this Court. Proceedings u/s 145 are of emergent nature and should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. They should not continue over years like civil proceedings. Pendency of proceedings u/s 145 for a long time has to be deprecated. 6. Subject to the above observations, both the Criminal Revisions are disposed of. The L. C. R. should be sent back forthwith, not later than seven days.