K. N. SINHA, J. Heard learned Counsel for the Revisionist, learned A. G. A. and perused the impugned order. 2. It appears that proceedings under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. was initiated at the instance of the one party. The preliminary order under Section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. and attachment order under Section 146 (1) Cr. P. C. was issued. Thereafter proceedings were dropped by order dated 26-2-2001 on the ground that no breach of peace existed between the rival parties in respect of the disputed property. 3. The proceedings were dropped by order dated 26-2-2001 against which a revision was filed wherein it was directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to follow the procedure laid down in Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. and then decide the matter on merit. In spite of the direction of the revisional Court, the S. D. M. , without following the procedure, itself conducted spot inspection and decided the matter in the light of spot inspection. Again a revision was filed in which it was directed to decide the case as per the provisions of Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. The S. D. M. again committed the same mistake and passed order without adhering to the provisions of Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. , hence the revisional Court passed the impugned order in Revision. 4. I have gone through the order of the S. D. M. and that of the revisional Court. The provision of Section 145 (4) Cr. P. C. lays down that after the service of summons the Magistrate shall peruse the statements filed, hear the parties, receive all such evidence produced by them and take such further evidence which he thinks necessary and then decide the possession. 5. It appears that the S. D. M. concerned is bent upon in passing the order without caring for the directions of the revisional Court. It is highly objectionable. The order passed by the revisional Court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. The S. D. M. concerned should bear in mind that Explanation to Section 397 Cr. P. C. already lays down that all Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398 Cr. The S. D. M. concerned should bear in mind that Explanation to Section 397 Cr. P. C. already lays down that all Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of Section 398 Cr. P. C. The S. D. M. should not be shy to obey the order passed by revisional Court. 6. The history of this case shows that in spite of direction given in two revisions, the S. D. M. has disregarded them. It may be observed that by disregarding the order of revisional Court, the concerned S. D. M. has exposed himself for the contempt. 7. However, at this stage, this Court does not propose to take any action and hope that wisdom will prevail on S. D. M. concerned and he will decide the matter within the ambit of law and the direction given by the revisional Court. 8. The revision is devoid of any force and it is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to District Magistrate, Bijnor to be served on the concerned S. D. M. The Magistrate shall decide this matter within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties of the proceedings are expected to extend their full co-operation in deciding the matter within time. Revision dismissed. .