This revision petition is directed against Hie order of CL ltuliaz Ahmad Sabi, Magistrate First Class, Lyallpur, who refused to proceed with the ease initialed under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondents on the ground that the land in question belongs to the Evacuee Trust and the provisions of section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not applicable to it in view of Sh. Mohd. Zafar v. The State and another (1). A revision petition tiled before the learned District Magistrate was dismissed.
2. It is conceded by Mr. S. M. Masud, learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in S. M. faff or v. A. Q. Shaukat and another (2), a Magistrate is competent to take cognizance of proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. even in respect of the evacuee property, lie, however, submits that according to the findings of the Magistrate in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the petitioner had ceased to be the allottee and the allotment had been cancelled by the order of the Settlement Authorities. According to him the petitioner had no cause of action. Mr. Jariullah submits that according to his instructions this land has been restored to the present petitioner, but he is not able to give any particulars of the date of order of restoration or the date when it was restored. 1 find from the reading of the record that the proceedings were also otherwise incompetent. In the application filed before the (Vol. V Magistrate a grievance was made by the petitioner that tln^ respondents had sold away the crops and in spite of the promise to pay him the batai were evading to do so. He made a bare assertion in the application that there was a danger of breach of peace. In the preliminary evidence led before the Magistrate it was said by the witnesses that the respondents were threatening the petitioner with dire consequences. 1 do not think there was sufficient data before the Magistrate to proceed under section 145 Tltc complaint filed before the Magistrate did not fall within the ambit of section 145, Cr. P. C. The proceedings under sec tion 145, Cr. P. C., were, therefore, void. If the petitioner had any right to the batai at the time when this case was registered or the land was restored to him later on*$he could have had recourse to the proper Court for realization of m^iie profit or the rent as he may be advised.
3. The proceedings were initialed in January 1965 on the basis that breach of peace was apprehended. More than six and a half years have elapsed since then. It cannot therefore be said that the apprehension of breach of peace still exists. No order is called for on this petition even on this account. The petition is dismissed. .