A. C. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) ON 3/10/1917 petitioner No. 1 and two others namely Netul Das and Sambhu Das filed a petition under section 144 Cr. P. C. before the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate. Chandernagore. In that petition they inter alia alleged that they are absolute owners and occupiers of a pond situated in Plot No. 1559 and agricultural land in Plots Nos. 1557 and 1558 in Souza Singh herbheri under P. S. Singur in the district of Hooghly that they have right to take water from the said pond for the purpose of irrigating their lands in the aforesaid two plots and, that the petitioners of this revisional application obstructed them from taking water from the said pond for irrigation purpose and that accordingly there was an apprehension of breach of peace. Learned Magistrate received the police report on 7-12-77. On receipt of the police report learned Executive Magistrate passed an ex-parte order of injunction under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. on 9-12-77 restraining the present petitioners from interfering with the work of irrigation of the Plots Nos. 1557 and 1558 with the waters of the said pond and asked the present petitioner to show cause by 6-1-78. This ex-parte order under section 144 (2) Cr. P. C. was alleged to have been served on the petitioner on 4-1-78. The present petitioners filed show cause on 27-1-78 challenging the allegation made in the said petition under section 144 Cr. P. C. and denying the alleged right of the present opposite party and two others to take water from the laid pond for the purpose of irrigation and alleging that the petitioners were Joint owners of the said pond. The exparte order passed under section 144 (2) Cr. P. C. on 9-11-77 expired on 10-2-78 and it was never made absolute. On 18-1-78 the present opposite party Ajit Kumar has alone filed application before the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Chandernagore under section 188 I. P. C. alleging that on 16-1-78 present petitioners violated the order under section 144 (2) Cr. P. C. Learned Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate, Chandernagore lodged the complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Chandernagore on 9-3-1978. On 18-1-78 the present opposite party Ajit Kumar has alone filed application before the learned Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Chandernagore under section 188 I. P. C. alleging that on 16-1-78 present petitioners violated the order under section 144 (2) Cr. P. C. Learned Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate, Chandernagore lodged the complaint before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Chandernagore on 9-3-1978. ( 2 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Chandernagore who disposed of the application under section 188 I. P. C. found that although the accused persons (the present petitioners) themselves were not restrained from using the water of the pond they were restrained from interfering with the Irrigation work of the petitioners namely the opposite party No. 1 and he found on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the opposite party Ajit Das that after the promulgation of the order, that order was violated and annoyance and injury was caused to the petitioner (that is the present opposite party No. 1 ). He accordingly held that prosecution case has been proved and found the present petitioners guilty under section 188 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to suffer simple Imprisonment for 15 days and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. 00. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by that order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore the present petitioners preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 78/83 before the learned Session. Judge, Hooghly which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, First, Court, Hooghly who considered four points urged before him by the learned Advocate for the appellants. (1) Was the order of in Junction under section 144 Cr. P. C. utterly wrong and fundamentally had on merits? (2) Was the order under section 144 Cr. P. C. duly promulgated? (3) Did the accused-appellant violate the order of injunction? and (4) Is the sentence to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine too heavy in the facts and circumstances of the case? ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering materials on record answered all these points against the present petitioners and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revisional application. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners has urged the following points before us: (1) Only one of the petitioners of the application under section 144 of the Cr. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge after considering materials on record answered all these points against the present petitioners and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revisional application. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioners has urged the following points before us: (1) Only one of the petitioners of the application under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. filed this petition under section 188 I. P. C. and the lame is not permissible under the law. (2) Evidence does not support the findings of the courts below on the facts in issue. (3) Promulgation of the order was not proved. (4) Order under section 144 (2) was passed ex-parte, and was not made absolute though show cause was filed by the present petitioners and the complaint in the present case was instituted after the expiry of period of 60 day and that therefore complaint under section 188 was not maintainable. (5) As the property in question was undisputedly joint property of the parties proceedings under section 144 Cr. P. C. was not maintainable. (6) Dispute regarding drawing out of water from a common pond comes within the ambit of section 147 Cr. P. C. and not under section 144 Cr. P. C. (7) Disobedience per se is not an offence unless it causes obstruction annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or unless such disobedience causes or tended to cause danger to human life, health or property or denied to cause a riot or an affray. ( 6 ) WE consider the above points as follows: (1) The question whether one of the parties to the application under section 144 Cr. P. C. complained of violation of the order or all joined together is immaterial. (2) This being a revisional application this question cannot be gone into. There is nothing to show that there was any non-consideration of evidence or that the orders complained of are not based on evidence. (3) This question cannot also be considered because this is also a finding of fact passed on consideration of evidence. (4) We are also unable to accept this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, because the question to be considered is whether there was any violation of any order passed under section 144 by a Magistrate duly empowered to pass such an order. (4) We are also unable to accept this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, because the question to be considered is whether there was any violation of any order passed under section 144 by a Magistrate duly empowered to pass such an order. It has not been alleged that the Executive Magistrate passing the order was not empowered to make any order u/s 144 Cr. P. C. It is undisputed that an order under section 144 (2) Cr. P. C. was passed by a Magistrate authorised to pass such an order under section 144 Cr. P. C. and that order was alleged to have been violated on 16-1-78 i. e. before its expiry on 10. 2. 78. The date of lodging the complaint under section 188 is not at all material. (5) Plain reading of provision of section 144 clearly shows that restraint order under that section can be passed in respect of any property provided the conditions necessary for passing such an order as embodied in that section are fulfilled. Such an order can be passed even against a person in respect of the property of which be is in exclusive possession as it appears from the clause direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management. . . appearing in that section. (6) We are also unable to accept this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners. On reading of the provisions of sections 144 and 147 of the Cr. P. C. it appears that it is not the intention of the legislature that whenever there is any dispute with regard to any alleged right of user of any land or water action is to be taken under section 147 and not under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. The difference in the subject matter of dispute is not the reason for embodying the two sections, namely 144 and 147 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The reason lies in the nature and character of the dispute. When the Magistrate finds that immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, the Magistrate is to proceed under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. whatever might be the property involved in the dispute. The reason lies in the nature and character of the dispute. When the Magistrate finds that immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, the Magistrate is to proceed under section 144 of the Cr. P. C. whatever might be the property involved in the dispute. When such immediate prevention or speedy remedy does not appear to be necessary the Magistrate may proceed under section 147 of the Cr. P. C. in respect of the property mentioned therein. ( 7 ) NOW we proceed to the last point. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that under section 188 I. P. C. disobedience of an order under section 144 Cr. P. C. per se is not an offence unless it causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed and that the Impugned order under section, 188 I. P. C. is to be set aside because there is no finding to the effect that the disobedience has caused or tended to cause any of the consequences referred to in clauses II and III of section 188 I. P. C. We are inclined to uphold this contention of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. Disobedience of the prohibitory order under section 144 Cr. P. C. becomes punishable under section 188 I. P. C. only if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed as stated in the 2nd clause of section 188 I. P. C. or if such disobedience causes or tends to cause damage to human life, health or safety or causes or tends to cause riot or affray, as stated in the 3rd clause of section 188 I. P. C. It is nobody's case that the requirement of the 3rd clause were fulfilled in the case. Learned Advocate for the opposite parties contended before us that 2nd dame is applicable to the present case inasmuch as, he argued, that the disobedience caused obstruction and annoyance to the opposite party No. 1 and 2 others who, according to him, were persons lawfully employed when they were obstructed from taking water from the pond by the petitioners who by the order under section 144 Cr. P. C. were restrained from causing any such obstruction. P. C. were restrained from causing any such obstruction. We are unable to accept his contention, that the opposite party No. 1 and 2 others (petitioners of the case under section 144 Cr. P. C.) could be said to be persons lawfully employed. His contention that the order of the learned Magistrate under section 144 Cr. P. C. makes the first party of that case that is the opposite party No. 1 and 2 others persons lawfully employed cannot be accepted in the perspective of the purpose of the provisions regarding the prohibitory order, A prohibitory order under section 144 Cr. P. C. is not intended to settle the rights of the parties before the court. It is intended to secure law and order and to prevent breach of peace. Prohibitory order under section 144 Cr. P. C. does not confer any right upon any party to do anything. It merely restrains one party from doing certain act or thing referred to in that order. The Magistrate is not concerned with individual rights in performing his duty under section 144 Cr. P. C. The entire basis of action under section 144 is provided by the urgency of the situation and the power therein is intended to be availed of for preventing disorders, obstruction and annoyance with a view to securing public weal by maintaining public peace and tranquility. Preservation of the public peace and tranquility is the primary function of the Government and the power under section 144 Cr. P. C. is conferred on the Executive Magistracy enabling it to perform that function effectively and with that end in view the executive Magistrate can override temporary private rights by restraining individuals from doing certain acts or things. In this prospective the phrase persons lawfully employed used in section 188 I. P. C. should be interpreted. It is clear from what has been noted above is that the purpose of an order under Dinbandhu Mondal section 144 Cr. P. C. is to prevent any disturbance to public peace and tranquility. In order that the purpose of the prohibitory order may be fulfilled, the authorities responsible for maintenance of law and order and public peace and tranquility, should have the power to see that any possibility of breach of such order is eliminated. P. C. is to prevent any disturbance to public peace and tranquility. In order that the purpose of the prohibitory order may be fulfilled, the authorities responsible for maintenance of law and order and public peace and tranquility, should have the power to see that any possibility of breach of such order is eliminated. The natural corollary that follows from this is that if such authorities reasonably apprehend that there is any possibility of breach of peace for violation of such order they should also be given the power to take steps for violation of such prohibitory order. It has also been noted that the prohibitory order is not issued to uphold any right of any individual but is issued for maintenance of public peace and tranquility. In this context the phrase persons lawfully employed used in the 2nd clause of section 188 refers to authorities who are entrusted to perform their functions for maintaining public peace and tranquility as the prohibitory order under section 144 is not concerned with the right of the individual persons to that proceeding, the phrase persons lawfully employed cannot refer to the first party of that proceeding. The phrase persons lawfully employed has been interpreted to refer to the law enforcing agencies in the decision of the case of Habibur Paswan Khan v. Jagdish Hondal and others, In view of our discussion about the purpose of the prohibitory Older under section 144 Cr. P. C. we respectfully agree with the said interpretation. ( 8 ) IN the present case there is no finding of either of the courts below that the disobedience caused or tended to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to the persons lawfully employed as explained by us Accordingly proceeding under section 188 I. P. C. was not maintainable. Hence this revisional application is allowed. The impugned orders of the courts below convicting and sentencing the petitioners are set aside. This Rule is made absolute. .