PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision filed under Section 397 Cr. P. C. , the petitioner has sought to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 5-4-1982 passed by Mr. G. V. Kongawad, Assistant commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chickballapur Sub Division, Chickballapur, in Case no. MAG. CR. 1/82-83 and confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Cr. A. No. 12/82 by his judgment and order dated 10-12-1984. ( 2 ) UNDER the impugned order, the petitioner has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month for the offence of Contempt of Court punishable under Section 228 IPC, in exercise of the summary powers under Section 345 Cr. P. C. It is stated, on 5-4-1982, at about 1 PM, when Mr. G. V, kongawad, Assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chickballapur, was in session and hearing some Land Acquisition Cases mentioned in the order under revision and particularly hearing Case Nos. BS. LAQ SR. 346/79-80, mentioned at Sl. No. 7, the petitioner went leading a procession of 50 persons beating drums, bugle-blower, creating heavy noise in and around the office and inspite of being told that he was busy hearing cases, he persisted in creating noise, thereby interfering with the proceedings in the case and committed the offence of Contempt of court. The petitioner was therefore taken into custody by about 3 PM, detained and a show cause notice was issued. After rising of the Court, his, statement was recorded and thereafter the impugned order was passed. ( 3 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that although Mr. G. V. Kongawad was working as assistant Commissioner and Sub Divisional Magistrate of Chickballapur Sub Division, but at the relevant time he was neither sitting as a Revenue Court nor Criminal Court and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 345 Cr. P. C. and pass such order of Contempt of Court and the Learned Sessions Judge had failed to consider this aspect of the case while confirming the order and therefore the order passed by Mr. Kongawad, Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M. , and confirmed by the Sessions Judge deserve to be set aside. ( 4 ) IT appears, no such contention was raised before the Sessions Judge. Kongawad, Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M. , and confirmed by the Sessions Judge deserve to be set aside. ( 4 ) IT appears, no such contention was raised before the Sessions Judge. If that aspect of the case had not been considered by the Sessions Judge, it was because no such contentions were advanced before the Sessions Judge. Apart from the fact that cognizance of such offence committed in the view of the Court has to be taken and order sentencing the offender made before rising of the Court, and the order came to be made only after rising of the Court, there is material infirmity in the case. From a reading of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Sub divisional Magistrate and from what has been stated in paragraphs-1 and 2 as also in the operative part of the order, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Kongawad, although a Revenue Officer, holding office in different capacities, was sitting only as a Land Acquisition Officer and hearing the Land acquisition cases at that time. A Land Acquisition Officer is neither a Revenue Court nor a criminal Court. The provisions of Section 345 Cr. P. C. are available only when such offences punishable under Section 178, 179, 180 or 228 IPC are committed in the view or presence of any civil, Criminal or Revenue Court. The Land Acquisition Officer being not such a Court had no jurisdiction to invoke those provisions and punish for such contempts. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Magistrate and confirmed by the Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside.