( 1 ) THE present case arises out of an application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ( 2 ) IT is directed against the order dated 9. 3. 2006 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Darjeeling in M. R. case No. 5 of 2006. The learned Magistrate by the said order attached the finished products, raw materials and tea plants and assets of the factory situated at Chongtong tea Estate, in short "the Tea Estate". The learned Magistrate also appointed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling, as Receiver of the tea Estate and also formed a Managing Committee for assisting the receiver. ( 3 ) THE grievances of the petitioner, as ventilated before this Court, may briefly be stated as follows : The petitioner company, amongst other business interests, owns two tea gardens, namely, Chongtong Tea Estate and Lohagarh Tea Estate - both within the district of Darjeeling. For the last 10/12 years the former tea Estate has been suffering from acute financial crisis and became financially unviable and this was largely due to consistent non-performance of majority of the workers employed therein. Since 1984 relying upon the assurances of the workers that they would ensure increase in production and improvement in the quality of the produce, the company has been running, Despite loss amounting to Rs. 600/- lakhs, the management continued to run the industry in order to safeguard the interest of the workmen. The situation, however, did not improve and the workers, being influenced by some of their leaders as well as outsiders, contributed towards deteriorating industrial relations in the Tea Estate. This naturally resulted in further loss to the management. Salary for the month of December, 2005 could not be paid to the workers on the scheduled date. The workers were duly intimated and were requested to bear with the situation. The management tried to explore all possible ways for arriving at a viable practical solution. Repeated attempts for negotiation across the table failed to yield any result. The management of the Tea Estate was left with no choice but to declare "suspension of work" and issued a notice dated 13. 1. 2006 to that effect. The management tried to explore all possible ways for arriving at a viable practical solution. Repeated attempts for negotiation across the table failed to yield any result. The management of the Tea Estate was left with no choice but to declare "suspension of work" and issued a notice dated 13. 1. 2006 to that effect. It, thereafter, came to the notice of the management that a section of the workers in collusion with anti-social elements having vested interests started cutting down the existing matured tea bushes as well as the shed trees with the sole motive to damage the properties of the tea Estate. On 17. 1. 2006 a complaint was lodged in this regard before the officer-in-Charge of the Pul Bazar Police Station. This was followed by a letter dated 20. 1. 2006, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, darjceling, wherein it was stated that there is serious threat to law and order. The situation could only be attempted to be taken care of by improving the quantity of production and the quality of the produce. Those belonging to the management of the Tea Estate were, thereafter, put under serious threat. A tripartite meeting was fixed at the office of the District Land and land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling on 31. 1. 2006. The management of the tea Estate, however, in view of violent activities carried out by a section of the workmen did not think it proper to attend such meeting. This was also brought to the notice of the authorities concerned. The Assistant Labour commissioner, Darjeeling, convened a meeting on 2. 2. 2006 at Darjeeling town. The management of the Tea Estate requested for shifting the venue but that was not given any regard. Attention of the District Magistrate, darjeeling, was drawn to such deteriorating law and order situation by a letter dated 1. 1. 2006. The Assistant Labour Commissioner again convened a tripartite meeting on 6,2,2006. It came to the notice of the management of the Tea Estate that a section of the workforce attempted to break open the main gate of the factory as also the manager's bungalow. A complaint was lodged in this regard on 2. 2. 2006. Without taking the situation into consideration the Assistant Labour Commissioner again convened a tripartite meeting on 1. 4. 2006. The District Police Authorities were requested to provide them with necessary police protection, but without any fruitful result. A complaint was lodged in this regard on 2. 2. 2006. Without taking the situation into consideration the Assistant Labour Commissioner again convened a tripartite meeting on 1. 4. 2006. The District Police Authorities were requested to provide them with necessary police protection, but without any fruitful result. In such circumstances, the petitioner company was compelled to file application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Court of Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate, Darjeeling, as the illegal and criminal activities of a section of the workforce gave rise to reasonable apprehension of breach of public law and order. The learned court by order dated 13. 2. 2006 directed Officer-in-Charge of the Pul Bazar police Station to enquire into the matter. ( 4 ) A former employee of the Tea Estate committed suicide on 24th february, 2006 and Mr. Agarwal, Director of the petitioner company, was tied up in the suicide note left behind by the deceased. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the son of the said deceased employee, Pul Bazar police Station Case No. 6 dated 25. 2. 2006 was registered for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Agarwal, however, could not have had any remote link in the matter of commission of suicide by the said ex-employee. This, however, gave long rope to the agitating employees who made capital out of this and intensified their agitational programme thereby mounting further pressure upon the authorities. In the daily newspaper, the Statesman, North Bengal Region, dated 1. 3. 2006, a report was published to the effect that the District Administration had decided to hand over the Tea Estate to a Receiver following a meeting with the Joint action Committee of Trade Unions at the garden. It was further reported that the Administration had constituted a Managing Committee. It was also reported that the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer was appointed as receiver. The names of persons in the Managing Committee were also duly published. It was further stated that the relevant authorities decided not to extend term of the lease in favour of the petitioner company, which expired as far back as in 2002. ( 5 ) THE report of the concerned Police Authorities, as forwarded to the learned Magistrate, disclosed that there was apprehension of serious breach of peace if Mr. It was further stated that the relevant authorities decided not to extend term of the lease in favour of the petitioner company, which expired as far back as in 2002. ( 5 ) THE report of the concerned Police Authorities, as forwarded to the learned Magistrate, disclosed that there was apprehension of serious breach of peace if Mr. Agarwal or anyone on his behalf attempted to enter the tea garden. ( 6 ) THE learned Executive Magistrate after due consideration of all relevant facts and materials and having regard to the reports received from the Police Authorities observed that the tea garden in question had been abandoned by the management thereby causing serious sufferings to the workers, one of whom had committed suicide. There was apprehension of breach of peace if any attempt is made by anyone from the side of the management to enter into the tea garden. Learned Magistrate did not find any reason for proceeding with the application under Section 144 of the code of Criminal Procedure but decided to proceed under Section 145/146 of the Code. It was further considered that the lease in favour of the petitioner company having expired on 24. 08. 2002 and the same having not been renewed, the petitioner company could not be said to be the lease holder or that it was running the garden from 13. 01. 2006. Having regard to the fact that the tea estate was lying at large with its factories and allied assets and the tea estate having been left uncared for and unattended since 13. 01. 2006 resulting in acute financial distress and starvation of workers, there was serious apprehension of breach of peace and public order. By order dated 09. 03. 2006 the learned Magistrate attached all finished products, raw materials and tea plants and assets of the factory of the tea estate until further order. The learned Magistrate by the said order appointed the Block land and Land Reforms Officer as Receiver of the Tea Estate and also constituted a Managing Committee for assisting the Receiver in the manner as referred to earlier. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances the said order dated 09. 03. 2006 was sought to be challenged by filing the instant revisional application. Mr. Dilip Dutta, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances the said order dated 09. 03. 2006 was sought to be challenged by filing the instant revisional application. Mr. Dilip Dutta, learned senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Sekhar Bose and others at the very outset submitted that the basic ingredient required for initiating a proceeding under Section 145/146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the existence of a dispute relating to possession. Mr. Dutta submitted that in the present case there was no dispute regarding ownership and/or possessory rights nor any such right had been even claimed by the agitating workers. According to Mr. Dutta, the learned Magistrate did not have any justification for proceeding under Section 145/146 of the Code even in absence of any dispute in regard to possession. Mr. Dutta expressed wonder as to how the learned Court, without taking steps for providing access to the managerial staff of the Tea Estate, could proceed in an arbitrary manner and appoint the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer as Receiver in respect of the property under reference. It was specifically mentioned that the earlier publication of the entire result in the nature of appointment of a Receiver and formation of a Managing Committee for the purpose of assisting the said Receiver clearly indicates that the learned Magistrate did not have any independent application of mind but was largely guided by extraneous factors and being influenced by outside forces. It was further submitted with emphasis that the learned Magistrate should not have been come to a finding without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company, mr. Dutta added that the order under challenge reflects premeditated action which naturally caused prejudice to the petitioner company. Attention of the Court was drawn to Section 145/146 of the Code. Sub section (1) of section 145 of the Code provides that the learned Magistrate is required to serve notice upon the parties in the dispute for attending Court on specified date and time to put in written statement in support of their respective claims in regard to actual possession in respect of the disputed property. Such service of notice and an opportunity to show cause are essential ingredients in respect of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. The same having not been done by the learned Magistrate, the order passed is in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. Such service of notice and an opportunity to show cause are essential ingredients in respect of a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code. The same having not been done by the learned Magistrate, the order passed is in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. It was further submitted by Mr. Dutta that Section 146 of the Code provides for attachment of the subject of dispute and appointment of a Receiver in respect thereof. The police report, which was perhaps the basis for the learned Magistrate to proceed under section 145/146 of the Code, did not disclose any dispute regarding possession of the tea estate by the petitioner company. In absence of any dispute in that regard, there could be no scope for passing of an order of attachment of the finished products, raw materials, tea plants and assets of the tea estate. It was contended by Mr. Dutta that the suo moto action taken by the learned Magistrate, without any complaint regarding the dispute of possessory rights of the attached articles, is not permissible under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then again, there could be no scope for constituting a Managing Committee for the purpose of assisting the receiver. ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner by filing the present application sought for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate as referred to earlier. ( 9 ) IT appears from the available materials on record that the present petitioner as applicant approached the learned Court of Executive Magistrate with an application under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate in response to the same took up the matter for consideration on 9. 3. 2006. Referring to the Police Report dated 2. 3. 2006, it was observed that there was indication of apprehension of breach of peace, the learned Magistrate referred to another Police Report, sent by Officer- in-Charge, Pul Bazar Police Station, wherein it was reflected that the chongtong Tea Estate was closed down on 13. 1. 2006 by its owner causing tremendous sufferings to the labourers of the garden. There had been efforts by Joint Action Committee of workers for settlement of the dispute with the owner but without any success. A former employee even committed suicide being unable to bear with the financial distress and a case under Section 306,. P. C, WAS started. 1. 2006 by its owner causing tremendous sufferings to the labourers of the garden. There had been efforts by Joint Action Committee of workers for settlement of the dispute with the owner but without any success. A former employee even committed suicide being unable to bear with the financial distress and a case under Section 306,. P. C, WAS started. It was stated in the Police Report that if the owner or any representative attempted to enter the tea garden, there could be serious breach of peace. ( 10 ) THE learned Magistrate, thereafter, took into consideration the fact that there was no allegation in any of the police reports that the workers of the garden indulged in any activity detrimental to the garden or the factory. The learned Magistrate referred to the report that abandoning of the garden by the management caused serious sufferings of the workers. ( 11 ) IN such backdrop the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that promulgation of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not solve the problem. Thereafter the learned Magistrate decided to deal with the matter from a different angle. After ordering that there is no logic in proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned magistrate started dealing with the right to manage the activities of the garden. ( 12 ) THIS was followed by proceeding under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 13 ) BEFORE proceeding further with the impugned order, it is perhaps necessary to mention that Section 145 of the Code deals with the procedure where disputes concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. It certainly refers to certain procedural formalities. ( 13 ) BEFORE proceeding further with the impugned order, it is perhaps necessary to mention that Section 145 of the Code deals with the procedure where disputes concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace. It certainly refers to certain procedural formalities. Sub section (4) of Section 145 of the Code lays down as follows : " (4) The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties, to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute : provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1 ). " ( 14 ) IT is perhaps needless to mention that no such formality was complied with by the learned Magistrate while deciding to proceed with the matter under Section 145/146 of the Code. Reference was made to the backdrop of the present dispute by the learned Court while passing the impugned order. Admittedly the present petitioner was a lease holder till 24th August, 2002. There was proposal for renewal of the lease for 30 years with effect from 25. 08. 2002, but the lease has not been renewed so far. It is also not disputed that the management of the petitioner company declared "suspension of work" on 13. 01. 2006. The learned Magistrate observed that since then, the tea garden under reference was not functioning. In absence of any order directing anyone to manage the functioning of the tea garden on and from 13. 01. 2006, the entire thing was virtually thrown into an ocean of uncertainty and anxiety of the learned Magistrate in this regard can be well appreciated. The learned Magistrate observed that since then, the tea garden under reference was not functioning. In absence of any order directing anyone to manage the functioning of the tea garden on and from 13. 01. 2006, the entire thing was virtually thrown into an ocean of uncertainty and anxiety of the learned Magistrate in this regard can be well appreciated. Abandoning the tea garden as well as its workers on and from 13. 01. 2006 inevitably resulted in acute financial distress and it is far too a tragedy that a former employee of the tea garden chose to commit suicide being unable to bear with the financial distress. There is no doubt that all these circumstances harmoniously combined to paint the management of the said tea garden with shame. This goes a long way to cause painful embarrassment to the administration of justice. By referring to the administration of justice, it is not intended that one is only confined to the legal justice without having any regard to socio-economic injustice. ( 15 ) SIGNIFICANTLY enough, the learned Magistrate did not choose to stop there, but appointed the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling, as Receiver and constituted a Managing Committee to assist the said receiver so as to protect the tea garden under reference as well as its office, machineries and produce and so on and so fourth. ( 16 ) MR. Safiliuah, appearing as learned Counsel for the opposite party/state in course of his submission frankly mentioned that there are occasions in life when technicalities of law and the procedural formalities must be made to make room for substantial justice. What was submitted by mr. Safiliuah was essentially that the learned Magistrate quite rightly was guided by "heart" rather than "head". ( 17 ) MR. Dutta, however, submitted that the essential elements to attract proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that there must be dispute in regard to possession and there must be apprehension of breach of peace. Mr. Dutta submitted that there was no scope for any dispute regarding possession. After considering the relevant materials it is, however, found that admittedly there was apprehension of breach of peace and having regard to the fact that the petitioner company suspended work on and from 13. 1. Mr. Dutta submitted that there was no scope for any dispute regarding possession. After considering the relevant materials it is, however, found that admittedly there was apprehension of breach of peace and having regard to the fact that the petitioner company suspended work on and from 13. 1. 2006, it cannot be said that the management of the said company or any representative of the same was in actual physical possession of the tea garden. This is more important in the context of the fact that the lease expired with effect from 24. 2. 2006, though application praying for its renewal was pending with the authorities. Reference was made to Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act in support of the contention that if a lessee or under-lessee of property remains in possession thereof after the determination the lease granted to the lessee, and the lessor or his legal representative accepts rent from the lessee or under-lessee, or otherwise assents to his continuing in possession, the lease is, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, renewed from year to year, or from month to month, according to the purpose for which the property is leased, as specified in Section 116 of the Transfer of Property act. This seems to be effect of holding over. But the applicability of such principle in the facts and circumstances of the case could not be a matter for consideration in a proceeding under Section 145/146 of the Code of criminal Procedure. Besides, mere claim, of course supported by copies of certain receipts, that rent was paid even after expiry of the lease and the same was accepted by the authorities, does not in the peculiar backdrop of the present case straightway attract the principle of holding over. This aspect, strictly speaking, being not a matter of concern in connection with the present application, I do not think any further detailed discussion in this regard is called for. ( 18 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it was submitted by Mr. Dutta that a few days prior to passing of the impugned order, a news item was published in "the Statesman", North Bengal Region, regarding proposed appointment of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling, as Receiver of the tea garden and setting up a committee with representatives of the political parties. Dutta that a few days prior to passing of the impugned order, a news item was published in "the Statesman", North Bengal Region, regarding proposed appointment of Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling, as Receiver of the tea garden and setting up a committee with representatives of the political parties. Having regard to the developments, which took place, such publication undoubtedly put the administration into embarrassment and the fact that a few days after publication of such report, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 9. 3. 2006 thereby virtually echoing the said news report, goes a long way to shatter the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. Mr. Dutta further submitted that the learned magistrate earlier functioned as a mediator in the dispute between the management and the workers and as such, should not have entertained the proceeding nor should have passed the said order dated 9. 3. 2006. It is perhaps needless to mention that any Court of Law, irrespective of its status and position, must inspire confidence of the people. This is not enough that justice is done, but it must be manifestly shown to have been done. In the backdrop of the present case what was done by the learned Magistrate certainly does not indicate that it could really inspire confidence of the parties before it. ( 19 ) A question arises as to the legality of the order under challenge. As mentioned earlier, there was no scope for the learned Magistrate for bypassing the requirement of serving notice to both parties and denial of an opportunity of hearing was in effect in violation of the basic principle of natural justice. This by no stretch of imagination can have its root in the rule of law. ( 20 ) ON behalf of the petitioner Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel, contended that in absence of a dispute regarding possession Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot have any application. Referring to the decision in the case of Govind Sharan and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Anr. , reported in 1977 Cr LJ 2007 it was submitted that there could be no question of the tea garden workers claiming possession. Relying upon the decision in the case of Islam Khan v. Munir, reported in 1978 Cr. Referring to the decision in the case of Govind Sharan and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Anr. , reported in 1977 Cr LJ 2007 it was submitted that there could be no question of the tea garden workers claiming possession. Relying upon the decision in the case of Islam Khan v. Munir, reported in 1978 Cr. LJ 202, it was contended that no legal right is created in favour of persons who at best are looking after the property on behalf of the masters. But the tea garden workers, who were sought to be resisted, cannot be characterized as mere "servants" looking after the garden on behalf of the petitioner company. ( 21 ) WHILE assailing the order under challenge, it was submitted that a composite order under Section 145 (1) and 146 (1) of the Code of Criminal procedure is bad. The decisions in the case of Mahendra Tiwary v. Lal pari Devi, reported in 1982 Cr LJ 17 and the case of Kottarrathil Mavunni and anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr. , reported in 1982 Cr LJ 468, were also referred to in this context. ( 22 ) LEARNED Single Bench of this Court in the case of Md. Shamsur ah Biswas and Ors. v. Hara Ghosh and Ors. , reported in (1993)1 Cal HN 187, took note of the conflicting decisions regarding legality of a composite order and observed that when the Magistrate exercises his independent mind on both the matters separately and passes a composite order, there can be no scope for any grievance. ( 23 ) IN the case of Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi, reported in 2004 C Cr LR (SC) 150, it was held that the Executive Magistrate would not take cognizance of the dispute if it is referable only to ownership or right to possession and is not over possession simpliciter. ( 24 ) THUS, legal principles governing proceeding under Section 145/ 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are, more or less, settled. ( 25 ) BUT a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. (Reference Lord Halsbury - Quinn v. Leathum, 1901, AC, 495, 506 ). ( 26 ) IN the present case it may be recalled that the petitioner approached the Court of Magistrate with an application under Section 144 of the Code. ( 25 ) BUT a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. (Reference Lord Halsbury - Quinn v. Leathum, 1901, AC, 495, 506 ). ( 26 ) IN the present case it may be recalled that the petitioner approached the Court of Magistrate with an application under Section 144 of the Code. Having regard to the fact that the lease in favour of the petitioner company expired quite sometime back and desertion of the tea garden by the management and its representatives of the petitioner company with effect from 13. 1. 2006, when "suspension of work" was declared, the learned court refused to respond in favour of the petitioner and very rightly so. It is not for the Court of Magistrate in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 144 of the Code to enter into the effect of expiry of lease when renewal application is pending and effect of holding over under Section 116 of the transfer of Property Act. Question of title is not to be decided by the magistrate, whose primary concern is confined to actual physical possession and apprehension of breach of peace. The backdrop of the case certainly does not demand appreciation of any claim of symbolic possession. ( 27 ) IT is quite, rightly mentioned by Mr. Safllluah, learned Public prosecutor, that how could the Court ignore the plight of hundreds of workers, who as a consequence of arbitrary decision of suspension of work were literally thrown into terrible financial distress. Besides, commission of suicide of an ex-employee, goes a long way to indicate the grave situation prevailing. ( 28 ) THE spirit of his submission can be better expressed in the language that "laws grind the poor, rich men rule the law". After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case one is tempted to express himself in the language of Remain Rollend that "when order is injustice, disorder is the beginning of justice". ( 29 ) THUS, I find it difficult to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate was not justified in not responding favourably to the petitioner's application under Section 144 of the Code. ( 30 ) BUT the matter does not end there. The learned Magistrate appears to have proceeded further - presumably in his passion for delivering justice in an extremely alarming situation. ( 30 ) BUT the matter does not end there. The learned Magistrate appears to have proceeded further - presumably in his passion for delivering justice in an extremely alarming situation. The order of suspension of work virtually exposed the antagonistic contradictions between the management and the workers, the haves and have nots. True, it is difficult for the learned magistrate to remain indifferent to such a state of functional disorder. But justice is to be done in accordance with law without being guided by sentiment and without being influenced by any extraneous factor. But this is not always an easy proposition. Borrowing the words of Benjamin N. Cardozo it may be said that" There is in each of us a stream of tendency, whether you choose to call it philosophy or not, which gives coherence and direction to thought and action. Judges cannot escape that current any more than other mortals. All their lives, forces which they do not recognize and cannot name, have been tugging at them - inherited instincts, traditional, beliefs, acquired convictions ; and the resultant is an out look on life, a conception of social needs, a sense of James's phrase of 'the total push and pressure of the cosmos' which, when reasons are nicely balanced, must determine where choice shall fall. " ( 31 ) IT cannot be denied that everybody, which is created by statute and whose powers and duties are defined by statute, is a public authority. It is the duty of such authority to enquire fairly and impartially as well as to decide in accordance with law. It is also for the said authority to exercise discretion reasonably and to come to a reasonable decision. It may, however, be said that within the bounds of legal reasonableness is the area in which the deciding authority has genuinely free discretion. It is also the duty of the learned Court to hold the balance fairly. Keeping such principles in mind it is found that the learned Magistrate while exercising his power under section 145 and 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been a bit hasty and the petitioner or for that matter the representatives of the tea garden workers were not given an opportunity of a fair hearing. It may be that the situation prevailing in the disputed area demanded and deserved immediate action but justice hurried is quite often justice buried. It may be that the situation prevailing in the disputed area demanded and deserved immediate action but justice hurried is quite often justice buried. The first and foremost duty on the part of any Court of law is to inspire confidence of the parties. Such confidence can only be earned by acting in an impartial way and approaching the problem in a just and reasonable manner. Denial of an opportunity of hearing by itself amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice. There is no reason for the Learned Court for not taking all these factors into consideration. This invites further controversy when it is found that the decision arrived at by the Learned Magistrate was virtually published in a daily newspaper a few days earlier. This undoubtedly has gone a long way to cast cloud and there is nothing before this Court to suggest that anything was done in order to "lead kindly light amidst the encircling gloom. " ( 32 ) IN the circumstances, the decision arrived at by the Learned magistrate cannot be justified as the manner in which such decision was arrived at certainly cannot be said to be unimpeachable or beyond controversy. ( 33 ) ACCORDINGLY, the present application being A. S. T. No. 194 of 2006 be disposed in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment. ( 34 ) THIS, however, will not prevent the concerned authorities to initiate fresh proceeding under Section 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal procedure. But for the reasons as mentioned earlier, if such a proceeding is initiated, the same must be done by a Magistrate other than the Learned magistrate whose decision was sought to be assailed by filing the instant application. .