1. The facts of the case as narrated in the written report dated 9-4-1995 run thus:-- "One Maulvi Nazirullah, resident of Kashrote Gilgit presented an application to the S.S.P., Gilgit on 22- 3-1995. The S.S.P. Gilgit marked the same to the S.H.O. Police Station Jaglote for necessary action.
A.S.-I. Gulbaz Khan, after the necessary investigation; submitted a complaint under section 107, Cr.P.C. In the Court of Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that after Nautore in Mouza Parri Bungalow, the complainant Maulvi Nazirullah got allotted 55 Kanals of Nautore land in his name; that Nizam-ud- Din respondent wants to take forcible possession of the disputed land; that the complainant approached the respondent not to do so, but he was threatened to be killed and the trees grown by the complainant on the land were uprooted; that the respondent harasses the complainant and his tenant and the complainant apprehends danger at the hands of respondent; that on the basis of the application, A.S.-I. Gulbaz Khan investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, it came to light that the disputed piece of land was allotted to Maulvi Nazirullah in the year 1978; that the respondent Nizam-ud-Din has engaged laborers in the land in question in order to take the possession of the same; that there is every likelihood of the breach of peace between the parties. It is further stated that the complainant apprehends danger to his life at the hands of respondent; that A.S.-I. Gulbaz Khan also attached the documents pertaining to the Nautore land along with the written application. It is prayed that Nizamud-Din respondent be bound down for keeping peace for a period of one year; that respondent also be restrained from taking forcible possession from the complainant."
2. On 16-4-1995; the learned trial Magistrate recorded the statements of Maulvi Nazirullah complainant, his tenant Ashraf Khan and Gulbaz Khan, A.S.-I./S.H.O. Jaglote. After having satisfied himself, the learned trial Magistrate served Nizam-ud-Din with a notice under section 112, Cr.P.C.
And also provided the copies of statements of the P. Ws. To Nizam-ud-Din.
3. On 24-4-1995, as is evident from the order-sheet, the Magistrate felt that the case pertains to a dispute over a piece of land and he asked the Revenue Authorities to submit a report regarding the possession of the disputed land, but the report could not be submitted by the concerned authorities. Subsequently, on 15-5-1995, the learned trial Magistrate altered the section of law from section 107, Cr.P.C. To section 145, Cr.P.C. And directed the parties to produce their evidence.
4. On different dates, the petitioner Nizam-ud-Din remained absent and the parties, therefore, could not be examined. On 11-12-1995, the trial Magistrate directed the parties in clear terms that in case of failure to produce their respective evidence, he will be left with no option, but to decide the case on the material available on file, as the case was lingering on for the last about 8 months.
5. Resultantly, on 28-12-1995, Nizam-ud-Din petitioner failed to put in appearance in Court and the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, taking into consideration the statements of Maulvi Nazirullah complainant, his tenant Ashraf Khan and Gulbaz Khan, A.S.-1. Coupled with the other documents on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly stressed on the point that before taking action under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. The Magistrate was bound to issue a notice under section 112, Cr.P.C.
And non-compliance of which has rendered the whole subsequent proceedings illegal and nullity in the eyes of law.
7. In the present case, as is clear from the material available on record, the proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. Were initiated on the application of Maulvi Nazirullah, respondent which was addressed to the S.S.P. Gilgit, who marked the same to the S.H.O., Police Station Jaglote for further legal action. The S.H.O. Jaglote submitted the complaint under section 107, Cr.P.C. To the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who in his turn, marked the same to the Tehsildar/ M.I.C., Gilgit for disposal.
8. The Magistrate, in support of complaint .Recorded the statements of Maulvi Nazirullah, Ashraf Khan and Gulbaz Khan, A.S.-I. And after having satisfied himself, he issued a notice under section 112, Cr.P.C. During these proceedings, when the Magistrate realised that the matter pertained to a dispute over a piece of land, he converted the proceedings from section 107 into one under section 145, Cr.P.C.
9. No notice under section 112, Cr.P.C. Is necessary if the parties are not bound down under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the trial Magistrate has served the present petitioner with a notice under section 112, Cr.P.C. But finally the parties were not bound down under section 107/151, Cr.P.C. And the Magistrate proceeded with the case in hand under section 145, Cr.P.C.
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, learned counsel for the petitioner lamentably failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, dated 28-12-1995, passed by the trial Magistrate. The result is that the revision petition fails and stands dismissed.