ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed at the instance of party No. 1-Parasram against the order dated 6-7-2009 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ganj Basoda, Distt. Vidisha, in criminal revision No. 156/2007, whereby order dated 24-7-2007 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ganj Basoda, in case No. 4/06/145, Code of Criminal Procedure. has been reversed and set aside. 2. Indeed the applicant/party No. 1 ought to have filed a revision application before this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. because the original order dated 24-7-2007 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. is in his favour and by this order it was directed to deliver possession to him and it has been set aside by learned revisional Court allowing the revision application of Respondents/party No. 2 and thereby setting aside the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate by further directing to deliver possession to party No. 2/Respondents. This application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed by the applicant on 17-7-2009 which is also within the period of limitation prescribed to file criminal revision, hence, in order to serve justice, this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. is treated as a revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. On the complaint submitted by Station Officer in-charge of police Station, Tyonda, dated 9-2-2006 in respect of certain agricultural land, the description whereof has been mentioned in the impugned order, a preliminary order of attachment was passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 10-2-2006 since there was an apprehension of breach of piece and the lands in question were given in Supurdgi to village Chaukidar Gayaprasad along with the standing crop. The order of attachment was assailed before the learned revisional Court by applicant/ party No. 1 by filing criminal revision No. 55/2006 before learned Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ganj Basoda, who vide its order dated 12-3-2007 directed learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the matter finally because the evidence of the parties has already been recorded. The said order dated 12-3-2007 of revisional Court is in the file of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and this fact is also admitted to the parties. 4. The said order dated 12-3-2007 of revisional Court is in the file of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and this fact is also admitted to the parties. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in pursuance to the directions given by learned revisional Court, passed the final order under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. in favour of applicant/party No. 1 by directing that the possession of disputed property be delivered to him and a letter in that regard be sent to police Station, Tyonda. 5. Party No. 2/Respondents assailed the said order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate by filing revision application before learned revisional Court which has been allowed by the impugned order and by setting aside the order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, it has been directed to applicant/party No. 1-Parasram to deliver possession of the disputed property to party No. 2/Respondents. 6. In this manner, this application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. which has been treated by me as a revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. has been filed by party No. 1/Parasram. 7. The contention of Shri L.L. Goswami, learned Counsel for the applicant, is that learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate who has been vested with the powers to marshal the evidence and to record the finding of fact about the factum of possession within two months from the date of passing of the preliminary order, has found the possession of applicant/party No. 1, and therefore, learned revisional Court by setting aside the finding, of fact, erred in holding that the possession on the disputed property is of party No. 2/ Respondents. 8. By putting a deep dent on the finding of learned revisional Court holding the possession of party No. 2/Respondents on the disputed property on the basis of Khasra entries, it has been vehemently argued by him that the said finding is not sustainable in the eye of law for three reasons, firstly these documents were not tendered during the evidence, secondly, these documents are not the certified copies, and therefore, they are inadmissible in evidence, and thirdly the entry in the Khasra is having only presumptive value of its correctness under Section 117 of the Evidence Act and the presumption has been rebutted by the oral evidence. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this. Court in Arjun Singh v. Bharat Singh 1995 RN 50. 9. It has also been put forth by learned Counsel for the applicant that scope of enquiry under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. is very limited and in these proceedings only this much is to be ascertained that which party is in possession of the disputed property within two months from the date of passing of the preliminary order, and therefore, even if the stand of party No. 2/Respondents is that they have purchased the suit property, since roving enquiry of title is not contemplated, therefore, even it is prima facie held that party No. 2 is the owner, it is not having any significance in these proceedings. 10. On the other hand, in her usual vehemence Ms. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2, argued in support of the impugned order passed by learned revisional Court and has submitted that which party is in actual possession within two months from the date of passing of the preliminary order is to be ascertained and because there is no finding of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in that regard, therefore, rightly the said finding has been set aside by learned revisional. Court by allowing the revision application of party No. 2/Respondents. In support of her contention, learned Counsel has placed heavy reliance on Shamim Alam v. Sajjid Hussain and Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 551 . Learned Counsel has also placed heavy reliance on two decisions of Supreme Court, they are Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar and Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 410 : AIR 1984 SC 1471 ) and Chandu Naik and Ors. v. Sitaram B. Naik and Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 210 : AIR 1978 SC 333 : 1978 Cri LJ 356). 11. By inviting my attention to paras 2, 3 and 4 of the order of learned revisional Court, it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondents that because party No. 1-Parsaram gave statement in favour of party No. 2 in a civil suit that he (party No. 2) is in possession of the disputed property, therefore, applicant is estopped from raising the dispute that party No. 2 is not in possession. It has also been put forth by her that as per the stand of party No. 1 earlier the land was attached in some other proceedings and thereafter the possession of the disputed property was given to applicant/party No. 1, but, no document has been filed in that regard by party No. 1. It has also been argued by her that a order of temporary injunction was also passed by learned Civil Court in favour of party No. 2. 12. Lastly in has been submitted by her that since the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not reasonable, therefore, rightly it has been set aside by learned revisional Court. 13. In reply, it has been contended by Shri Goswami, learned Counsel for the applicant, that the question of estoppel does not arise for the simple reason that whatever has been stated in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the order of learned revisional Court is nothing but the submissions of Respondents who were applicants before learned revisional Court. So far as the order of issuance of temporary injunction in favour of party No. 2 by the Civil Court is concerned, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that no document has been tendered in evidence in that regard and even if for the sake of argument it is held that order of temporary injunction has been passed in favour of party No. 2 in some civil suit, that suit was not filed against the present applicant, but has been filed by Gopal Singh, who is the father of party No. 2, against Santram and some other persons, and therefore, that order would not bind applicant/party No. 1. 14. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this revision application deserves to be allowed. 15. On going through the scope of Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, according to me, it is in the domain of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to record a finding that which party is in possession within two months from the date of issuance of preliminary order and this legal position is rightly not being disputed by both the learned Counsel for the parties. Indeed, the decisions of Supreme Court Sadhuram Bansal AIR 1984 SC 1471 ) (supra) and Chandu Naik and Ors. Indeed, the decisions of Supreme Court Sadhuram Bansal AIR 1984 SC 1471 ) (supra) and Chandu Naik and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 333 : 1978 Cri LJ 356) (supra) highlight the same proposition of law and there is no dispute in this legal proposition. On going through the order passed by learned revisional Court, this Court finds that learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate in detail marshalled the evidence of both the parties and after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, came to hold as under : (i) The witnesses of party No. 1/applicant are the agriculturist adjoining to the disputed property and are more reliable and they are saying that party No. 1/applicant is in possession of the suit property; (ii) the witnesses of party No. 2 are keeping malice and they are not the agriculturist adjoining to the disputed property, and therefore, they are not reliable in comparison of the witnesses of party No. 1; (iii) the witnesses of party No. 2 are not the residents of village in which the disputed property is situated; (iv) the evidence of witnesses of party No. 2 is self contradictory because some of the witnesses have stated that parties never quarreled and some of the witnesses are saying that they have quarreled and there is apprehension of breach of peace. On going through the finding of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate which is based on the appreciation of the evidence, it can be inferred that what is meant by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is that applicant/party No. 1 is in possession of the disputed property and merely because in the concluding para the words that "party No. 1 was in possession of the disputed property within two months prior to passing of the preliminary order" are not mentioned, ipso facto cannot be said that the decision of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is that applicant/party No. 1 is not in possession of the said property within two months prior to the date of attachment. Indeed, appreciation and marshalling of the evidence has been made in such a way that one can infer that what is meant by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate is that applicant/party No. 1 was in possession of the disputed property within two months from the date of passing of the preliminary order under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure., and therefore, merely because in the concluding para words that applicant No. 1 was in possession of the disputed property within 2 months from the date of passing of the preliminary order are not mentioned, it will not somersault the entire inference drawn by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate which is based on appreciation and marshalling of the evidence. Hence, it is hereby held that applicant/party No. 1 was in possession of the disputed property immediately before two months prior to passing of the preliminary order under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. The learned revisional Court has reversed the finding of learned Sub Divisional Magistrate on the ground that Khasra entries are more reliable than oral evidence and because Khasras of the disputed property were never taken into consideration by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, therefore, the order of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot be sustained in the eye of law. This Court fully agrees with the submission of learned Counsel for the applicant that the documents of Khasra were not tendered in evidence and they were not exhibited. These documents were never confronted during the cross-examination either to applicant/party No. 1 or to his witnesses. These documents were never tendered in evidence while party No. 2 and their witnesses were examined. These documents are not even proved in evidence as they were not exhibited. Therefore, the order of learned revisional Court is based on the documents which are not at all proved. 17. Apart from what I have held hereinabove, on going through the documents of Khasras, which are only tagged in the file of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, this Court finds that they are not the certified copies and they are only the certificate issued by the Patwari. 17. Apart from what I have held hereinabove, on going through the documents of Khasras, which are only tagged in the file of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, this Court finds that they are not the certified copies and they are only the certificate issued by the Patwari. Section 76 of the Evidence Act speaks about certified copies of public documents and according to this section, every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. The party No. 2/Respondents have not filed certified copies of the Khasras in terms of Section 76 of the Evidence Act and the documents which they have filed are nothing but the certificate of Patwari which could have been proved by examining Patwari and by providing opportunity to the applicant/party No. 1 to cross-examine him. According to Section 77 of the Evidence Act, certified copy of public documents can be proved only by mere production thereof and because the documents which are tagged in the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate are not the certified copies, therefore, these documents are not having any significance and they are unproved documents. 18. The Supreme Court in Bhinka and Ors. v. Charan Singh AIR 1959 SC 960 : (1959 Cri LJ 1223) in the similar facts and circumstances held that certificate issued by Patwari is not a certified copy of Khatauni. This decision of Supreme Court was taken into consideration by this Court in Koushalya Bai and Ors. v. Radha and Anr. 2004(4) MPLJ 317 : (AIR 2005 (NOC) 207) and Dalso Bai v. Halko Bai and Ors. 2008(2) MPLJ 180 . This decision of Supreme Court was taken into consideration by this Court in Koushalya Bai and Ors. v. Radha and Anr. 2004(4) MPLJ 317 : (AIR 2005 (NOC) 207) and Dalso Bai v. Halko Bai and Ors. 2008(2) MPLJ 180 . I may further add that certified copies of public documents shall be deemed to be original by virtue of statute and in that regard I may profitably place reliance on the decision of privy council in Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sundar Mal and Ors. AIR 1934 PC 157. Hence, for this another reason the documents of Khasra/unproved documents, which are not the certified copies, are not having any relevance and merely because they are tagged in the file, it will riot strengthen the case of Respondents/party No. 2. 19. So far as the contention of learned Counsel for the Respondents about the estoppel is concerned, according to me, the said contention is misconceived for the simple reason that whatever has been stated in paras 2, 3 and 4 of the order of learned Revisional Court is nothing but the argument raised on behalf of the Respondents who were applicants before the Court, and therefore, the question of estoppel against the applicant does not arise. So far as contention of learned Counsel for the Respondents that there is an order of temporary injunction in favour of party No. 2 in a civil suit is concerned, the said contention cannot be accepted because even if it is assumed that some order of temporary injunction has been passed, since as stated by learned Counsel for the parties, in, the said civil suit applicant No. 1 is not a party, therefore, the said order is not binding on him. So far as giving evidence by party No. 1 in favour of party No. 2 in a civil suit is concerned, according to me, this was only a submission of Respondents before learned revisional Court. The deposition of applicant/ party No. 1 was not exhibited and proved in evidence. 20. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this revision application is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by learned lower revisional. Court is hereby set aside and the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Mag-1 istrate is hereby restored. 21. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.