JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Being aggrieved by the preliminary order u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure and attachment of the disputed land u/s 146(1), of the said Code, the members of second party have filed this criminal revision. 2. On 19.2.1988 notice was directed to be issued before admission. Despite valid service of notice, opposite parties have not entered appearance. 3. Second party members have approached this Court immediately after receipt of notice of the proceeding from the Court of the Subdivisional Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, even before obtaining a copy of the order to appreciate the nature of the order passed on the basis of which the notice has been issued. 4. Mr. J.M. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the disputed land comes within the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate, Kujang, which is within Jagatsinghpur subdivision md accordingly, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate should not have initiated the proceeding leaving it to the Executive Magistrate to consider he question of initiation of such proceeding. Mr. Mohanty also assailed the order of attachment u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, since the notice did not indicate that there was any emergency for attachment of the disputed and on which sugarcane crop stands. 5. In support of the first contention, Mr. Mohanty referred to the difference in language of Sections 144 and 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, and submitted that the legislative intention is that the Executive Magistrate who can better appreciate the question should exercise jurisdiction. I am not inclined to accept the contention. The jurisdiction of the Subdivisional Magistrate, concurrent with the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate. The main object of the provision is prevention of breach of peace. When the provision is a preventive measure, any authority having jurisdiction can initiate the same. Priority of jurisdiction cannot be considered in such circumstances. Thus initiation of the proceeding by the learned Subdivisional Magistrate does not call for any interference in this revision. 6. As regards the second contention relating to challenge to the order of attachment u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr Mohanty calli upon the decision reported on Brajamohan Nath Vs. Smt. Kesi Tripathy and Another, and submitted that the Magistrate is to be satisfied that emergency exists in spite of the preliminary order before he passes an order of attachment. As regards the second contention relating to challenge to the order of attachment u/s 146(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr Mohanty calli upon the decision reported on Brajamohan Nath Vs. Smt. Kesi Tripathy and Another, and submitted that the Magistrate is to be satisfied that emergency exists in spite of the preliminary order before he passes an order of attachment. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition Non-mention of such satisfaction in the notice or even in the under itself, would not justify interference in revision since attachment is an interim measure and the party aggrieved can bring to the notice of the Court passing the order of attachment that there is no emergency as revealed from the facts and circumstances on record. If the learned Magistrate accepts the contention of the party he can vacate the order or attachment. In case the learned Magistrate does not accept the contention, Petitioners may move the revisional Court when the revisional Court on the facts and circumstances shall examine if the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate which is the condition for attachment, is justified. The second contention of Mr. Mohanty, thus, fails. 7. In the result, the criminal revision does not deserve admission, and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed