IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.193 of 2009 RAJ KISHORE PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 16.4.2009 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dt.13.12.08 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar,Patna, in Case no.617(M)/08 whereby he declared the possession of the O.Ps. in respect of the suit land in a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submits that ,in fact, the suit land in question has been declared in his favour vide Annexure-1 in T.S.No.18 of 1998, whereby the respondent – opposite parties were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner forthwith. When the respondent-O.Ps. failed to execute the sale deed, the same was executed in his favour, through the process of the Court vide Annexure-2 in the year 2001. The learned counsel asserts that the petitioner was already in possession from before. In view of the aforesaid materials on record, it is surprising as to how the learned Magistrate has declared the possession of the O.Ps. in a proceeding under section 144 Cr.P.C. - 2 - The Executive Magistrate is not empowered to declare possession in a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. He can decide factum of possession only, when a proceeding is converted into section 145 of Cr.P.C. An order under section 144 Cr.P.C. loses its effect after lapse of 60 days from date of passing of date of the order. Further more, it is well settled by Courts that a finding recorded in a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C. will not prejudice either of the parties in any further proceedings or a suit. With the aforesaid observation this application is disposed of. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)