JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl. Rev. No. 28/2002 whereby the learned Judge has reversed the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in Case No. 132/2001 under Section 145, Cr.P.C.
2. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioners that the Additional Sessions Judge completely overlooked the fact that possession of the land by the petitioner had been established by evidence on record which was relied upon by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and has been wrongly interpreted by the Additional Sessions Judge. He fortifies his argument by showing that an application had been moved in The High Court being Crl. M. A. 3564/2003 wherein the respondents have clearly stated that they have come into physical possession of the disputed land at the instance of the Station House Officer who put them into possession on 11th November, 2002. This application is supported by an affidavit which clearly shows that the respondents were not in possession prior to the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
3. Counsel for the respondents submits that this Court will not disturb findings of fact by reappreciating the evidence on record and that the Additional Sessions Judge having elaborately gone into the matter it is not open nor correct for this Court to interfere in the same.
4. I have heard Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It appears to me that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while deciding in proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. held that the petitioners herein were in possession of the disputed premises and continue to remain in possession. The Additional Sessions Judge, on the other hand, held that the respondents were in possession and continued to remain as such. But this fact is belied by the respondents' own application filed in this Court as Crl. M.A. 3564/2003 where they have stated that the respondents have been put into possession on 11th November, 2004. Obviously, this means that they were not in possession prior to 11th November, 2002. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents were dispossessed during proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. by the petitioner and put back into possession on 11th November, 2002. Therefore, the result would be that the respondents were never in possession and have put up a false case to dispossess the petitioners. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate was right in holding that the possession of the premises in dispute was that of the petitioners herein.
5. In this view of the matter, I set aside the judgment and order dated 7.11.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge and restore the order dated 27.9.2002 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. With this Crl. M.C. 3699/2002 stands disposed of. Crl. M. A. 3564/2003 also stands disposed of.