1. ' By this application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. a declaration is sought to the effect that proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Baldia Town, are unwarranted, illegal and without jurisdiction. The applicant is aggrieved with the order, dated 3rd September, 1998, by the learned Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baldia/Mauripur, Karachi, West, under section 145(1), Cr.P.C. And the order, dated 8-10-1999 by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, West whereby revision application submitted by the applicant assailing order, dated 3-9-1998 by the learned S.D.M. Baldia was dismissed.
2. ' Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, could initiate proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. To prevent the breach of peace if any aggrieved party was in possession of land or was dispossessed within two months before the date of order forcibly and wrongfully. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, had no authority to hold any inquiry or probe into title of the property and his jurisdiction is restricted to the inquiry pertaining to the actual possession of the plot in dispute. He has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has initiated proceedings on the basis of report submitted by Sub-Inspector, Muhammad Shaft, of Baldia Town. Police Station, Karachi wherein he has stated that there is apprehension of breach of peace on the point of possession over a plot adjacent to Dastagir Masjid, where the educational institution in the name of Naim Public School, is being run by Muhammad Rafiq son of Saad Mir, for the last four years. It was further stated in the police report that the-claim of Muhammad Siddique son of Dariya Muhammad, is that 10 years ago there was a Madrassah namely Ghousia Public School, on the said plot which was closed by Muhammad Rafique, and Naim Public School was established. It was further contended in a police report that a case under section 107/117, Cr.P.C. Is already pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and on 30-8-1998 the respondent No,1 Muhammad Siddique, who belongs to Sunni Tehreek, broke open the lock of Naim Public School, with the assistance of his 20/22 companions and attempted to forcibly occupy the plot but the Mohallah people and Muhammad Rafique resisted the attempt and recovered the possession. 7/8 companions of Muhammad Siddique received injuries in the process and counter-F.I.Rs, were recorded at the police station being F.I.Rs, 152 and 153 of 1998 under sections 147/148/337-A(i), P.P.C. He reported that there was tension due to the above incident and there is likelihood of commission of cognizable offence. On this report the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate passed the following order:-- "Order Under section 145(1), Cr.P.C.
3. ' Whereas S.H.O., Police Station Baldia Town, has reported vide his report, dated 1-9-1998, that there is an imminent apprehension of breach of peace over the possession of a plot adjacent to plot number Abidabad, Block-B, Balida Town, Dastgir Masjid between the parties. Both parties claim their possession over the plot in dispute.
4. ' And whereas, cases under sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. Are pending before this Court and that both the parties are still at dagger drawn due to which case F.I.R. No,152 of 1998 under sections 147/148, P.P.C.
5. And 337-A Q&D and case F.I.R. No,153 of 1998, under sections 147/148/448/427, P.P.C. Of Police station Baldia Town, are also pending before the Court concerned, but there exists circumstance, which may create grave law and order situation in the local limit of Baldia Sub-Division, Karachi-West.
6. ' Therefore, I am satisfied that immediate preventive action is necessary to refrain the parties to cause any law and order situation in the jurisdiction of Baldia Town Police Station Karachi-West.
7. They are also called upon to appear before this Court on 19-9-1998 at 9-30 a.m. In person or through the Pleader and submit their respective written statements regarding the factual possession over the plot in dispute, alongwith the relevant documents/other proof on the basis of which you claim possession over the plot.
8. ' Given under -my hand and the seal of the Court, this 3rd day of September, 1998.
9. (Sd.) Arshad Jamali, Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M. Balida/Mauripur, Karachi-West.
10. ' Being aggrieved with the above order, the applicant preferred a revision application before the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, assailing the legality and jurisdiction of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate for initiating proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, observed that the limitation of two months is not attached as condition precedent for taking of the cognizance.
11. ' According to her the only requirement to take cognizance is the presence of three ingredients i.e, holding of inquiry as to the respective claims of the parties, satisfaction of the Magistrate that dispossession has taken place and there is apprehension of the breach of peace. With these observations she dismissed the revision application.
12. ' Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the Courts below have fallen in error by ignoring the proviso to subsection (4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. Which provides that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has within two months next before the date of such order been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, he may treat the party so dispossessed as if he had been in possession at such date. He has further submitted that the ultimate order which can be made by the Magistrate under section 145, Cr.P.C. Is provided in subsection (6) of section 145, Cr.P.C. It is provided in subsection (6) of section 145, Cr.P.C. That if the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was or should under the first proviso to subsection (4) be treated as being in such possession of the said subject, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction and when he proceeds under the first proviso to subsection (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
13. ' Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, has submitted that since it is admitted position that applicant is running Naim Public School, for a period of four years prior to the police report, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has no authority to restore the plot to Muhammad Siddique and he has no authority in law to make any order.
14. ' Mr. Jawed Akhtar, learned State Counsel, has conceded that the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, West has fallen in error in holding that the limitation period of two months is not a condition precedent for taking up the cognizance and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has also failed to take notice of the provisions contained in section 145, Cr.P.C. He has conceded that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has exceeded his jurisdiction, and therefore, the proceedings pending before learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, are liable to be quashed.
15. ' I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. After going through the provisions contained in section 145, Cr.P.C. I am of the considered opinion that purpose of section 145, Cr.P.C. Is to prevent the breach of peace, concerning the dispute over land and to make interim order for protecting a person in possession of the land and for this purpose a person forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within period of two months can be treated as if he had been in possession of the land at such date.
16. ' The possession shall be protected by an order under section 145, Cr.P.C. Till the person in possession is evicted in due course of law meaning thereby with the decision of the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by virtue of the authority vested in him under section 145, Cr.P.C. Can neither make any probe or inquiry on the point of title of the claims in respect of the disputed land nor he has any authority to put any person in possession of the land who has been dispossessed at any time before two months of making order under section 145(1), Cr.P.C. In the present case, it is admitted position that the applicant Muhammad Rafique, is in possession of the disputed land at least for a period of four years before the police report, therefore, no probe or inquiry is required on the point as to which party is in possession of the disputed land or was in possession thereof within a period of two months before the submission of report. The inquiry and probe envisaged in section 145, Cr.P.C. Can be undertaken if there are conflicting claims pertaining to the possession of land dispute either at the time of apprehension of the breach of peace or at a time within a period of two months before submission of police report.
17. This is a condition precedent, for the reason that under the established principles of the interpretation of The statute the entire section 145, Cr.P.C. Is to be read in totality and no subsection or a part thereof is to be read in isolation. For the sake of convenience section 145, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced below:-- "145. Procedure where dispute concerning land etc., is likely to cause breach of peace.--- (1)
18. Whenever a District Magistrate, or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate especially empowered by the Provincial Government in this behalf is satisfied from a police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within the local limits of his jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.
(2) For the purposes of this section the expression land or water' includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.
(3) A copy of the order shall be served in manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute.
(4) Inquiry as to possession.--- The Magistrate shall then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of such parties to .t 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 respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence (if any) as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties, was at the date of the order before mentioned in such possession of the said subject: ' Provided that, if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has within two months next before the date of such order been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed, he may treat the party so dispossessed as if he had been in possession at such date: ' Provided also, that if the Magistrate considers the case one of emergency, he may at any time attach the subject of dispute, pending his decision under this section.
(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order; and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under subsection (1) shall be final.
(6) Party in possession to retain possession until legally evicted. If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was or should under the first proviso to subsection (4) be treated as being in such possession of the said subject he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction and when he proceeds under the first proviso to subsection (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed.
(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceedings and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purpose of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representative of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto.
(8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of, such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit.
(9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing.
(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107."
19. A perusal of the entire section reproduced above shows that the Magistrate, under section 145, Cr.P.C. Is required to make appropriate order declaring entitlement to possession of a person and forbidding the Other persons claiming the possession thereof till the title over the disputed land is decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction meaning there by a Civil Court and the person in possession is evicted in due course of law. Section 145, Cr.P.C. Is contained in Chapter XII of Criminal Procedure Code. Chapters VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and XIII, are contained in Part IV of Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with the provisions pertaining to the prevention of offences. Sections 106 to 153 specify the authority of police and Magistracy pertaining to the prevention of offences. All these provisions are directed towards the maintenance of law and order and taking of such actions which may prevent the commission of offences. For this reason various provisions contained in these sections are in addition to the other provisions and not in derogation thereof. It is specifically provided in subsection (10) of section 145, Cr.P.C. That the provisions in section 145, Cr.P.C. Shall not be deemed to be in derogation of the powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 107. It means that whenever such matters are brought before a Magistrate he is required to examine the facts and to consider as to which is the appropriate provision to which recourse has to be made for prevention of the offences and prevention of the breach of peace. As already stated in the earlier part of this order a proceeding under sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. Was already pending before the learned S.D.M. After the incident reported in the Police report on which learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed order under section 145(1), Cr.P.C. It was stated that two F.I.Rs, of the cognizable offences against both the parties were already recorded. Coupled with these facts it was stated in the police report that first party namely Muhammad Rafique is already in possession of the disputed plot and is running a school for last four years. In these circumstances, the appropriate action on the part of Sub-Divisional Magistrate would have been the initiation of proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. Whereby the parties could be bound down not to take the law in their own hands.
20. ' It is provided in section 107, Cr.P.C. That:--
(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the Provincial Government or the District Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace, or disturb the public tranquillity, the Magistrate if in his opinion there is sufficient ground for proceeding may in manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding three years as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix.
(2) Proceedings shall not be taken under this section unless either the person informed against or the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended, is within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdiction, and no proceedings shall be taken before any Magistrate other than a District Magistrate, unless both the persons informed against and the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended, are within the local limits of the Magistrate's jurisdiction.
(3) Procedure of Magistrate not empowered to act under subsection (1).--- When any Magistrate not empowered to proceed under subsection (1) has reason to believe that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, and that such breach of the peace or disturbance cannot be prevented otherwise than by detaining such person in custody, such Magistrate may, after recording his reasons, issue a warrant for his arrest if he is not already in custody or before the Court, 4nd may send him before Magistrate, empowered to deal with the case, together with a copy of his reasons."
21. ' It is further provided in section 112, Cr.P.C. That; ' "When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109 or section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to the show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required."
22. ' In section 117, Cr.P.C. It is provided that:--
(1) When an order under section 112 has been read or explained under section 113 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 114, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed in Chapter XX for conducting trials and recording evidence, except that no charge need be framed.
(3) Pending the completion of the inquiry under subsection (1) the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 112 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain hint in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded: ' In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Magistrate was empowered to proceed either under sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. Or under section 145, Cr.P.C. If the conditions precedent mentioned in section 145, Cr.P.C. Were fulfilled. As already observed one of the condition precedent in section 145, Cr.P.C. Is that if any aggrieved person is in possession of disputed land or is dispossessed within the period of two months from the date of report submitted to the Magistrate, the Magistrate can protect or restore the possession. It means that beyond that period the Magistrate cannot make any order disturbing the possession of any person who is proved to be in possession of the disputed land on the date of report to the Magistrate. Since the Magistrate while proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. Cannot disturb the possession of a person who is admittedly holding the same for a period of more than two months, therefore, initiating of any proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. For holding inquiry for ascertaining the factum of possession would be an exercise in futility.
23. I am fortified in my views that if one of the parties is admittedly in actual possession of the disputed land etc., for a period of more than two months before the order under section 145(1), Cr.P.C. Then the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to initiate proceeding under section 145, Cr.P.C. By the following judgments:--
(1) Debendra Chandra Sarkar v. Khodaram Sangma and others PLD 1951 Dacca 59, (2) Ch. Muhammad Siddiq v. Sahibzada Sahibyar Khan PLD 1963 (W.P.) BJ 26, (3) Nawabuddin v. Abdul Ghafoor 1988 PCr.LJ 335, (4) Abdul Haque v. The State and another 1973 PCr.LJ 945, (5) Muhammad Akbar v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and 3 others 1983 PCr.LJ 1355 and (6) Gulab Din v Muhammad Salim 1985 PCr.LJ 721.
24. ' In the first judgment of Debendra Chandra Sarkar v. Khodaram Sangma (supra), the relevant facts were that proceedings started in a petition which was filed before the Magistrate on the 3rd of May. 1948 and in that petition the petitioner charged 20 members of the opposite party for having forcibly taken possession of certain land. The Magistrate sent the petition to the Officer-in- Charge of Police Station for an inquiry and report by the 24th of May, 1948. Duty Officer submitted his first report on the 26th of June, 1948, but the Magistrate was not satisfied with it and called for a further report from the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. There was some delay and the report was not submitted until the 30th of March, 1949, and on that date the Magistrate drew up proceedings under section 145 of the Cr.P.C. And attached the disputed property. On a representation to the effect that the proceedings could not proceed in view of the proviso to subsection (4) of section 145 of the Code, the Magistrate cancelled the proceedings. A plea was taken before the Dacca High Court that dispossession took place within two months of the petitioner's application and if the proviso is to be interpreted literally, then order of the Magistrate must stands because dispossession was not within two months of the date of order. If however, the proviso is to be interpreted generously. And if it is to he held that as the petitioner moved the Court within two months of the date of his dispossession then the order of the Magistrate cannot he maintained.
25. ' The counsel for petitioner argued that the proviso should be interpreted reasonably and liberally according to the view taken in the Madras High Court. However, the plea was not accepted and it was held that a later decision of the Madras High Court does not follow the previous one but follows the decisions of other High Courts of Lahore, Allahabad, Sindh and Oudh. It was ultimately held that in construing the proviso to subsection (4) of section 145 of the Code, the Court must follow the wording literally, and if the party is found have been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed on a date outside two months next before the date of the order, then the proceedings cannot be maintained.
26. ' In the second case Ch. Muhammad Siddiq v. Sahibzada Sahibyar. Khan (supra). a plea was taken that the preliminary order was passed on 16-1-1963 and admittedly the petitioners and others were in possession of the property in dispute long before two months of the passing of the preliminary order and in such a case a Criminal Court is not competent to pass any such criminal orders.
27. Reliance was placed on the judgments in the case of Debendra Chandra Sarkar v. Khodaram Sangma and others PLD 1951 Dacca 59, Muhammad Amir v. Abdul Hamid Khan PLD 1955 Pesh. 31 and Bindhyachal Prasad Verma v. Madho Singh and others AIR 1946 Pat.
330. It was observed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Jamil Hussain Rizvi, that the view taken by the Peshawar Judicial Commissioner's Court was same as taken by the Dacca High Court and in the Peshawar case several authorities of different Courts were cited. It was held that since the property in dispute is admittedly in possession of some lessees long before two months of the passing of preliminary order, therefore, the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were misconceived and were quashed. It was observed that the matter is being contested in Revenue Courts as well as Civil.
28. ' In the third case Nawabuddin v. Abdul Ghafoor 1968 PCr.LJ 335 (supra), a similar point came for consideration before his Lordship Mr. Justice Feroze Nana Ghulamally, whether the Court has jurisdiction to take action and proceed in the matter when the Police report stated positively that the other party had been in possession of the disputed property for 4 or 5 months before. It was observed that the plea was rightly taken that the learned Magistrate has travelled beyond the scope of subsection (4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. In this judgment also reliance was placed on the earlier judgments referred by me. Reference was made to another case Sh. Shaukat Ali v. The State PLD 1965 Lah. 312, in which Lordship Mr. Justice, Ortcheson, observed that if in proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code possession of the party is established the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to enter into the question of title and to continue further proceedings. Another judgment in the case of Ghulam Mustafa v. Abdul Karim and others PLD 1964 Lah. 9, was referred wherein Bashiruddin, J. Considering the relevant facts of the Code of Criminal Procedure, observed that the period of two months mentioned in the first proviso of section 145 is to be computed from the date of the passing of the preliminary order under subsection (1) of section 145 and not from the date of the complaint. A plea was taken that if the three elements necessary for an order under section 145 were made out namely (i) a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace, (ii) the dispute refers to land or water or boundaries thereof and (iii), such land is situated within the limits of his territorial jurisdiction, the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to pass an order under section 145. The contention was replied and it was held as follows:-- ' "Learned counsel, however, ignores the fact that the present order has been passed under subsection (4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. And the overriding circumstance is the period of possession of the opposite side which restricts the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The proviso to subsection
(4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. Governs the entire aspect of the present case and for these reasons I am quite clear in my mind that the impugned order cannot be sustained."
29. ' The order was ultimately quashed.
30. ' In the fourth case Abdul Haque v. The State and another 1973 PCr.LJ 945, Mr. Justice Imadadally H.
31. Agha, of this Court while discussing the relevant facts of the cited case observed that "the respondent No,2, is not claiming the actual possession of the ShopNo .1-A which was in possession of the petitioner at the time these proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were taken. Therefore, obviously, there were no two rival claimants claiming actual possession of the subject in dispute as envisaged by section 145, Cr.P.C." He held that when the actual possession of one claimant is established the provisions to section 145, Cr.P.C. Were not attracted and obviously, no useful purpose or public purpose will be served by carrying on further the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Against the petitioner as in the circumstances just stated above when section 145, Cr.P.C. Is not applicable to the facts of the case it would amount clearly to abuse of process of Court. It was further observed that the proceedings under sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. Are pending with respect to the same shop and this would serve the purpose of the prosecution. The proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were ultimately vacated and the petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Was allowed.
32. ' In the fifth case Muhammad Akbar v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and 3 others 1983 PCr.LJ 1355 (supra), it was held that the proceedings taken under section 145, Cr.P.C. Above three months after the illegal dispossession were not maintainable in law.
33. ' In the last judgment Gulab Din v. Muhammad Salim 1985 PCr.LJ 721 (supra), it was held that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed premises two months before passing of preliminary order under section 145(1), Cr.P.C., and therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable within the meaning of first proviso to subsection (4) of section 145, Cr.P.C. The proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. Were quashed.
34. The provisions contained in Chapter VIII and Chapter XII of Part IV of Criminal Procedure Code are complementary to each other and are not derogatory or to the exclusion of each other as specifically provided in subsection (10) of section 145, Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the only action required by the learned S.D.M. Was to take necessary action for the prevention of breach of peace and it could be done by recourse to the provisions contained in Chapter VIII, Part IV of the Cr.P.C. (sections 107 to 126-A, Cr.P.C.)
35. ' For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed order under section 145(1), Cr.P.C. Which he was not empowered to do and, therefore, he exceeded his jurisdiction. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, could initiate necessary proceedings for prevention of the breach of peace only and had no jurisdiction to make any inquiry about the fact of actual possession over the plot in dispute, in the wake of admitted possession of applicant over it for the last four years. As the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, exceeded his jurisdiction, therefore, proceedings initiated by him under section 145(1), Cr.P.C. Are corum non judice. The learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, has not considered the real import of the provisions contained in section 145, Cr.P.C. And therefore, her order is not in accordance with the law and is liable to be set aside.
36. ' For the foregoing reasons, the order of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. West, dated 8-10-1999 is hereby set aside and the proceedings pending before the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate under section 145(1). Cr.P.C. Are hereby quashed. The application is allowed accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.