P L D 1956 Dacca 253 (PLP)

ELLIS, C. J.‑In our opinion this Rule must be discharged. It was issued on the District Magistrate of Dacca at the instance of the 6 petitioners, parties to a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending before Mr. M. M. Haq, Magistrate, First Class, Narayanganj. The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Magistrate on the 20th December 1950, drawing up fresh proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after dropping proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up on the 11th October, 1950, on a Police report by an Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Monohardi Police Station that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace in respect of the land mentioned in the report. The formal order under section 144 of the Code shows that it was an order drawn up on the basis of the Police report, The order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of course, had a life of 60 days and then came to an end. After the 60 days had expired the Magistrate passed an order directing that proceedings under section 145 of the Code should be drawn up as there was an apprehension of the breach of peace, This order was carried by the petitioners to the Sessions Judge of Dacca and they invited a reference to this Court for the quashing of the proceedings. Their application was rejected by Mr. V. Hussain, Sessions judge, on the 11th August, 1953. Thereafter they approached this Court in the exercise of its Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction and obtained the present Rule. Mr. Enayetur Rahman has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The ground of his objection is that after the proceedings under section 144 of the Criminal P. C., had expired on the 10th of December, 1950, no further proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be legally started on the 20th of December 1950, and as such the proceedings under section 145 of the Criminal P. C., were bad in law and were liable to be quashed. In his support Mr. Enayetur Rahman cited the case of Rebati Mohan Dey Sarkar, 1st party v. Amsar Ali Mondal and others 2nd party (5 D L R 162‑D). In the case under report it was held by a Bench of this Court that where proceedings under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had terminated no fresh, proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could thereafter be started, as proceedings under section 144 of the Code were irretrievably dead and they could not either be revived or converted into anything else. This is the gist of the head-note. The material portion of the judgment reads as follows: "The learned Sessions judge has completely overlooked the fact that the proceedings under section 145 were started on the 11th of January 1951, on which date the proceedings under section 144 were irretrievably dead and could not be revived or converted into anything. As we have already pointed out, the order under section 144 expired on the 3rd of December, 1950, and on that date the proceedings terminated. Thereafter there was nothing before the Magistrate on which he could start proceedings under section 145 of the Code". The case under review is quite different. It is true that the proceedings under section 144 of the Code died after the lapse of 60 days. The learned Magistrate was sensible of this fact, as will be seen in the order which he passed on the 20th of December, 1950. The material portion of that order is as follows: "Parties present. The injunction under section 144 Crimi nal P. C., was issued against 2nd party. To‑day 60 days have expired and 1st party apprehends that 2nd party which still claims possession will forcibly occupy the disputed lands. Both lawyers are present and claim possession of the disputed land on behalf of their respective parties. I felt that there is apprehension of breach of peace. Draw up proceedings under section 145, Criminal P. C., and ask both parties to put in appearance, written statements of their respective claims as respect the fact of actual possession of the disputed land. The land is attached. The Head Master, Hatirdia H. E. School, is appointed Receiver. He is to sell the crop if any and deposit the sale proceed in Court". The formal proceedings under section 145 of the Code does not refer back to the Police report at all. The language used by the learned Magistrate is: "Whereas it appears to me B that a dispute likely to cause breach of the peace exist between

" That is, the learned Magistrate is no longer relying on the defunct Police report as was the case in the case of Rebati Mohan Dey Sarkar‑1st party v. Amsar Ali Mondal and others‑2nd party, but he, is relying on the submissions that were made to him on the 20th of December 1950. Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. does not confine the Magistrate to acting merely on reports which he obtains from the Police. He can also act on "other information". In these circumstances the Rule cannot be supported oil the basis of the judgment cited. There is no substance in it and it is, accordingly, discharged. BADIUZZAMAN, J.‑I agree. K. B. A. Rule discharged