Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This is an application under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It is directed against the order dated 19.8.1998 passed by Shri A. B. Shekhar learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buxar in Criminal Revision Case No. 11/95, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision application filed by the present opposite party no. 2 and set aside the order dated 30.11.1994 passed by Shri Suresh Chandra Lal, Executive Magistrate, Dumraon, Buxar in Case No. 11 (M) of 1988. By the said order the learned Executive Magistrate had declared the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land bearing Plot No. 776 (Old) (1665 New) appertaining to Khata No. 378 (Old) (54 New) having an area of 1.05 acres of Vitlage-Dumraon. 2. In this petition the petitioner, who was the opposite party before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 11 of 1995, has contended that initially there was a proceeding under section 144 of the Code initiated with respect of the aforesaid land between Bachcha Lal Gupta, Shankar Bhaghwan and Sarda Devi on one side and the present opposite party no. 2 on the other. This proceeding was subsequently converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Code. As per the written statement filed on behalf of Bachcha Lal Gupta and others the land in question was recorded in the cadestral survey as Gairmajarua Malik. Subsequently the Maharaja Dumraon brought this land under his own cultivation and the land became Bakast Malik. Later on Dumraon industries was set up by the Maharaja on this land. At the time of the vesting of Jamindari the return was submitted by Maharaja Dumraon showing this land in possession of the Dumraon industries. A ceiling proceeding against Maharaja of Dumraon was started which also included the land in question in possession of the Dumraon industries. 3. Dumraon Industries sold the aforesaid land to one Rajeshwar Prasad through a registered sale deed dated 13.10.96 Thereafter the son of the said Rajeshwar Prasad transferred the aforesaid land through three different sale deeds dated 14.11.1982, executed in favour of Shanker Bhagwan, Bachcha Lal Gupta and Sarda Devi. The total area of the land transferred to them was 1 acre 24 decimals. The total area of the land transferred to them was 1 acre 24 decimals. After the execution of these sale deeds the vendees came in possession of this land and are cultivating the same and raising crops. 4. Opposite party no. 2, however, created trouble in the possession of three vendees resulting in a proceeding under section 144 of the Code which was later on converted into a proceeding under section 145 of the Code. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding the land in question were transferred by three vendees named above in favour of the petitioner through three registered sale deeds dated 5.7.1989 and the petitioner was put in possession of this land. He stepped into the shoes of the aforesaid three vendees and also was joined as a party in 145 proceeding. 5. In the said proceeding opposite party no. 2 filed a written statement claiming possession over the disputed land on the strength of an alleged un-registered sale deed dated 21.6.1954 executed by Dularia Devi the alleged daughter of Ram Das Bhar in favour of Dr. Edith Agenes Alexious {in short Dr. Edith). The further case of opposite party no. 2 was that Dr. Edith had gifted this land in favour of his wife Dulhin Sarda Devi through a registered sale deed dated 29.3.1988 and on the strength of the gift deed the opposite party no. 2 was claiming his possession over the disputed land. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the learned Executive Magistrate. The petitioner and all his three vendors submitted the copy of the order of the Additional Collector, Buxar passed in Ceiling Case which will show that initially the land in question belonged to Dumraon Industries which was transferred in favour of Rajeshwar Prasad through registered sale deed. Sub-sequently it came in possession of his son Dharampal, who was paying rent to the State of Bihar. He transferred this land to the three vendors of the petitioner and in the revisional survey the name of Dharampal, son of late Rajeshwar Prasad was recorded. Four witnesses were also examined on behalf of the first party (present petitioner) to show that he was in cultivating possession of the disputed land. 6. The second party (present opposite party no. 2) filed only two documents namely the fabricated unregistered sale deed dated 21.6.1954 executed by Dr. Four witnesses were also examined on behalf of the first party (present petitioner) to show that he was in cultivating possession of the disputed land. 6. The second party (present opposite party no. 2) filed only two documents namely the fabricated unregistered sale deed dated 21.6.1954 executed by Dr. Edith in favour of his wife and the deed of gift dated 29.3.1988 executed by Dr. Edith. It is important to mention here that even in this case registered deed of gift dated 29.3.1988 disputed plot no. 776 measuring 1.05 acres does not find mention. After bearing the parties and the perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned Executive Magistrate by his order dated 30.11.1994 declared the possession of the petitioner 1st party (present petitioner) over the disputed land against which opposite party no. 2 filed Criminal Revision No. 11/95. Even before the declaration of this possession over the disputed land by the learned Executive Magistrate by his order dated 30.11.1994 the petitioner was/ is in cultivating possession of the disputed land without any hindrance from any body muchless the present opposite party no. 2. However, when the petitioner wanted to repair the old boundary wall over the plot in question the opposite party no. 2 threatened to assault the petitioner while he was getting the boundary wall on the eastern side repaired though he did not raise any objection at the time of getting this boundary wall repaired on other three sides. The petitioner apprehending trouble filed a petition dated 13.6.1998 before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dumraon praying for providing the police help in order to enable him to repair this boundary wail. By order dated 21.6.1995 he was provided police protection. However, in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1995 filed before the learned Sessions Judge this order was challenged. Both the Criminal Revision No. 64/95 and 11/95 were heard together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge named above who by his impugned order allowed the same and set aside the orders dated 30.11.1994 and 21.6.1995 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate principally on the ground that since the present petitioner was seeking police protection by a petition dated 13.6.1995 it clearly meant that he was not in a possession of the disputed land. It was wrong on the part of the learned Additional Judge so to interprete the seeking of police help as the petitioner was in possession over the disputed land. As a matter of fact when with the help of the anti-social elements the petitioner was threatened with dire consequences if he continued with the repair work of the boundary wall then he had filed a petition dated 13.6.1995 for police protection. 7. The petitioner has further contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is wrong on facts and is based on conjectures and surmises. The documents produced on behalf of the petitioner clearly established his possession as well as the possession of his vendors over the disputed land. The Opposite party no, 2 on the other hand based his claim on an unregistered sale deed. The order of the learned court below is cryptic and arbitrary and he has based his decision on wrong grounds. It shows non-application of his mind to the facts of the case. The sole basis of the claim of opposite party no. 2 over the disputed land is deed of gift dated 29.3.1988 which does not include the disputed land. As such it is clear that there was no basis whatsoever on the strength of this opposite party no. 2 could claim the disputed land. On these grounds it has been contended that the impugned order be quashed and the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate be restored. 8. I have heard the parties in detail. I have also perused the judgment passed by the learned Executive Magistrate as also of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Executive Magistrate by his order dated 30.11.1994 passed in Case No. 11 (M)/88 had found the petitioner first part Bachcha Lal Gupta, Sheo Kumar Khemani (present petitioner) etc. in possession of the disputed land bearing Survey Plot no. 776 measuring 1.05 acres of land. While coming to this conclusion he has thoroughly discussed the respective cases of the parties and the oral and documentary evidences on record. He has taken notice of the various documents filed on behalf of the parties including the document in favour of Rajeshwar Prasad as also sale deed executed of his son Dharampal in favour of three persons who are the vendors of the present petitioner. He has taken notice of the various documents filed on behalf of the parties including the document in favour of Rajeshwar Prasad as also sale deed executed of his son Dharampal in favour of three persons who are the vendors of the present petitioner. As against it he has also examined the case of the present opposite party no. 2 according to which the land in question was recorded in the Khatiyan as Gairmajarua Malik but in its remark column the possession of one Ram Das Bhar was clearly mentioned, Dularia Devi the daughter of Ram Das Bhar used to visit Dr. Edith for treatment. She executed an unregistered sale deed on 21.6.1954 in favour of Dr. Edith. Since the consideration amount was less than Rs. 100/- it did not require registration. Since the sale deed 11.6.1954 Dr. Edith was possession in this land. She, however, executed a deed of gift in favour of the wife of the present opposite party no.2 on 29.3.1988. The learned Executive Magistrate has rightly not relied upon the story of oral sale of the disputed land as also the story of the deed of gift. It may be mentioned here that the land measured 1.05 acres and in the year 1954 it is difficult to believe that its price could be less than Rs. 100/-. So far as the deed of gift is concerned it is not in dispute that in it there is no mention of the present disputed land. Thus even if this deed of gift is accepted as genuine; since the present disputed land has not been gifted through it to the wife of opposite party no. 2; he can not lay any claim over the disputed land on the strength of any such deed of gift. Thus, the order dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate appears to be well founded and based on order and documentary evidence on record, as also on sound reasonings. 9. Coming to the impugned order dated 19.8.1998 it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has come to wrong conclusion without assigning any cogent reason for the same. In paragraph 3 of his judgment he has referred to the petition dated 13.6.1995 filed by the present petitioner for police help and the order dated 21.6.1995 passed on it for providing the police help to him. In paragraph 3 of his judgment he has referred to the petition dated 13.6.1995 filed by the present petitioner for police help and the order dated 21.6.1995 passed on it for providing the police help to him. Simply because the present petitioner had sought the police help from the authorities the learned Additional Sessions Judge jumped to the conclusion that this enough was indicative of the fact that the present petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land. Any such conclusion was totally unwarranted. What the present petitioner sought through his petition dated 13.6.1995 was the police help to complete the repair of the eastern boundary wall of the disputed land against which he was getting threats from the opposite party no. 2. It is not in dispute that the boundary wall on the three sides of this land was from before and was already repaired. So far as the eastern boundary wall is concerned as per the case of the present petitioner it was also in existence but at the time of its repair, since the opposite party no. 2 was causing obstruction, the police help was sought. This itself is sufficient to show that the present petitioner was in possession of the disputed land as otherwise he would not have sought the police help for completing the repairing of the boundary wait existing from before on the eastern side. This itself shows that he was in possession of the disputed land. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely misdirected himself by drawing the conclusion that since the present petitioner had sought for police help to complete the repair of the boundary wall he was not in possession of the disputed land. Any such conclusion, to say the least, was totally unwarranted and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has completely mis-directed himself in holding that this was sufficient to show that the present petitioner was not in possession of the disputed land. The learned Addt. Sessions Judge has referred to the deed of gift in favour of the wife of the present opposite party no. 2. Probably he has lost sight of the fact that even in this deed of gift the present disputed land does not figure, Hence even if this deed of gift is accepted as genuine for the sake of argument it will not give any right to present opposite party no. 2. Probably he has lost sight of the fact that even in this deed of gift the present disputed land does not figure, Hence even if this deed of gift is accepted as genuine for the sake of argument it will not give any right to present opposite party no. 2 over the disputed land. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone to the extent of observing as follows with respect to the order dated 30.11.1994 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate : "The impugned order dated 30.11.1994 seems to be a procured order. It is illegal and irregular." 10. I am surprised to note such sweeping remarks about any judicial order made by an experienced Judicial Officer of the rank of the Additional Sessions Judge without any basis whatsoever. The learned court below has not assigned any reason why he came to the conclusion that the impugned order before him was a procured order. As stated above I have gone through this order dated 30.11.1994 and I have found that the learned Executive Magistrate has properly discussed the oral and documentary evidence on record and has come to the correct conclusion. 11. For the reason stated above this revision application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is hereby quashed. The order dated 30.11.1994 passed in Case No. 11 (M) of 1988 is restored.