JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - Proceedings under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, were initiated before the Magistrate. The applicants Ram Das and Pati Ram had raised objections and also the question of applicability of Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. They asserted that proceedings, if any, under Section 133 Criminal Procedure Code may he gone into and not under Section 145 Cr. P.C. During the continuance of the proceedings, however, the Magistrate decided this prayer of Ram Das and Pali Ram against them and held that the provisions of Section 133 Cr. P.C. were not applicable and the case was rightly proceeded under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter the applicants participated in the proceedings till the end. The Magistrate by his impugned order and judgment dated 31.8.1981 came to the specific finding that it is impossible for him to hold as to which of the contesting sides was in possession over the disputed property. But at the same time he recorded a categorical finding that there was imminent danger of breach of the peace regarding the possession of said property between the parties. Consequently, he held that the property should be attached under Section 146 (1) of the Cr. P.C. and remain so attached unless and until the contesting parties have their rights settled through the Civil Court. This order was taken up in revision by the applicant and failing therein ultimately this application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, has been filed in this Court. 2. An objection was taken that since the revisional powers had already been availed of by moving the sessions Judge, the present application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable. To counter the said objection an application has been moved with additional Court fee of Rs. 100/- praying that this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may itself be converted into a writ petition and, accordingly, the merits of the case may be judged. That application has been allowed by the Court today. 3. A perusal of the order of the Magistrate indicates that he has held that on the basis of evidence produced from the parties the apprehension of breach of the peace existed but his finding that he was not in a position to record as to which of the contesting parties was in actual possession cannot be said to suffer from any error of law or procedure. Consequently the impugned order dated 31.8.1981 as upheld by the revisional court, requires no interference in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Consequently this application fails and is dismissed. Interim order dated 4.3.82 is vacated.