K. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Pallahara under Section 146 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure ('code') for short) attaching the disputed land having an area of Ac. 0. 70 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 20 of village Jambua within Khumar Police Station of Pallahara sub-division. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was the first party and the opposite parties were members of the second party in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code initiated by the former. According to his averments, the disputed land was recorded in the record-of-rights in the name of Gramadevati with a further record that he was the Marfatdar. He was in possession of the disputed land throughout and since the time of his forefathers performing the Seba Puja of the deity. The opposite parties, villagers created disturbance over the possession of the same and themselves claimed to possess the disputed land. Therefore, the petitioner apprehended breach of peace and initiated the proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. ( 3 ) THE Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order, attached the disputed land and gave the standing crops to the custody of the Revenue Inspector. He also issued notice to the opposite parties to enter appearance and file their statements. ( 4 ) THE opposite parties on entering appearance, filed a joint statement wherein they pleaded that the disputed land stood recorded in the name of Gramadevati Mohapat Thakurani and so the deity had the right to possess the same. The petitioner had no locus stand to initiate the proceeding for declaration of possession in his favour. They claimed possession of the disputed land and disputed the petitioners possession thereof. ( 5 ) THE Executive Magistrate in the impugned order came to hold that none of the parties proved his their exclusive possession, and so he was unable to satisfy himself as to which of them was in possession of the disputed land on the date of the priliminary order. So, he passed the order of attachment under Section 146 (1) of the Code of the subject of the dispute until determination by a Civil Court with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof. ( 6 ) MR. So, he passed the order of attachment under Section 146 (1) of the Code of the subject of the dispute until determination by a Civil Court with regard to the person entitled to possession thereof. ( 6 ) MR. P. Kar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the Executive Magistrate did not discuss the evidence, documentary and oral, adduced by the parties. Particularly, he did not notice the evidence of two of the witnesses of the opposite parties with regard to possession of the disputed land. Therefore, the finding recorded by him is not, in accordance with law and liable to be interfered with in revision on the ground of non-consideration of material evidence. ( 7 ) ALTHOUGH the Executive Magistrate wrote a labourious order stating the respective cases of the parties and the arguments advanced, he hardly discussed the evidence adduced by the parties. Though he referred to the record-of-rights (Ext. 1), he failed to notice that the petitioner was noted as the Marfatdar of the Gramadevati Mohapat Thakurani. As would appear from Ext. 2, even during the regime of the former ruler of Pallahara State, the deity was represented by a Marfatdar named Dhadia Padhan in the record-of-rights who was perhaps one of the ancestors of the petitioner. Ext. 1 was the rent receipt for the year 1988. The opposite parties did not produce a single document to prove that they were in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order. With regard to the oral evidence the Executive Magistrate in two short paragraphs made brief reference to the number of witnesses examined by each of the parties and their statements of claim of possession. He did not discuss the evidence of witnesses individually nor their credibility. All or a sudden he jumped to the conclusion on the basis of the report of enquiry of the police officer of Khamar Police Station that there was apprehension of breach of peace and none of the parties could prove possession in respect of the disputed land. On consideration of the impugned order, it cannot but noticed that the discussion about the factum of possession was perfunctory. ( 8 ) IN a criminal revision, this Court does not ordinarily go into the matters of evidence. On consideration of the impugned order, it cannot but noticed that the discussion about the factum of possession was perfunctory. ( 8 ) IN a criminal revision, this Court does not ordinarily go into the matters of evidence. But if in a given case there is non-consideration or misconstruction of evidence, there is no bar for the Court to glance at the evidence for doing substantial justice to the parties. As already referred to earlier the petitioner has adduced not only documentary evidence, but also oral evidence to his credit. On the other hand, the opposite parties have absolutely no documentary evidence. At the same time the oral evidence adduced by them is unsatisfactory. O. P. W. 1 stated that be bad no land near the disputed land. He bad complained before the Government and the Tahasildar that the name of the petitioner was wrongly recorded as the Marfatdar of the deitys land. O. P. W. 2, who is one of the members of the second party, admitted that he petitioner was the Marfatdar since be was cultivating the disputed land. The aforesaid evidence should have satisfied the Executive Magistrate that on the date of the preliminary order the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The possession of the petitioner in respect of the disputed land on the date of preliminary order is hereby declared. The criminal revision is accordingly allowed.