Decided on April 16,1970

Thounaojam Munal Singh Appellant
Karam Iboyaima Singh Respondents


R.S. Bindra, J.C. - (1.) THIS reference Under Section 438, Criminal P.C. by Shri P. N. Roy, the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, covers two criminal revision cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1969 arising out of two proceedings Under Section 145, Criminal P.C. dealt with by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Bishenpur, in two separate orders, each dated 10 -12 -1968. Practically speaking, only two points wore urged before Shri P. N. Roy, namely. (1) that notice of the proceedings had not been served on all the parties concerned and so the proceedings stood vitiated, and (2) that the Sub -divisional Magistrate had not perused the written statements, affidavits and documents filed by the contestants and so his conclusion lacked validity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the finding, while discussing the first point, that the notice of the proceedings had actually been not served on all the parties concerned and on that basis expressed the view that the proceedings stood vitiated. He found no substance in the second objection inasmuch as, it was held, the Sub -divisional Magistrate had digested all the material on record before giving his final orders in the two cases. The precise recommendation made by him as a consequence of these conclusions was that orders in both the proceedings should be quashed and the cases remanded to the Sub -divisional Magistrate for fresh decision after serving notices on all the parties concerned.
(2.) SHRI A. Nilamani Singh, representing the defeated party, challenged in this Court the correctness of the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that the Sub -divisional Magistrate had carefully gone through all the material on record before giving his findings in the two cases. For proper appreciation of the points requiring determination in this reference it is necessary that the essential facts should be outlined. Like the Sub -divisional Magistrate, I also propose dealing with the two cases separately, though they raise some common questions of law, because questions of fact are not identical. I would firstly reproduce the facts of Criminal Misc. Case No. 54 of 1967. On 18th of October 1967 the Wapokpi Co -operative Collective Farming Society (hereinafter called the registered Society) made an application Under Section 107, Criminal P.C. to the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Bishenpur, through its chairman K, Iboyaima Singh, against 23 persons' alleging that the latter were out to trespass on 32 paris of land forming part of Dag No. 10063 of village Wapokpi and thereby interfere in their established possession, and praying that they should be bound down for keeping the peace. That application was sent by the Magistrate to the Police for enquiry and report. On 7 -11 -1967 an application was made to the same Magistrate by Th. Munal Singh, the Secretary of Wapokpi Utlou Yanghi Loumee Farming Co -operative Society of Wapokpi Khunou (hereinafter referred to as the unregistered Society) against 13 persons seeking an ex parte order Under Section 144(2), Criminal P.C. respecting 1100 paris of land including aforementioned 32 paris. That application was also forwarded to the Police for enquiry and report. On 14 -11 -1967 the Police suggested in their report to the Magistrate that action Under Section 144, Criminal P.C. was indicated in view of the impending breach of peace between the two parties. The Magistrate, however, reached the conclusion on scanning through the available material that the situation could be met only by an order Under Section 145, Criminal P.C. Consequently, he passed the preliminary order Under Section 145(1), Criminal P.C. on 16 -11 -1967 and issued notices to both the parties directing them to submit their written statements, affidavits and documents in support of their respective claims to the possession of the land measuring 41 paris described in the order. In addition, with a view to obviate threatened breach of peace the Magistrate attached the land and directed the Police to arrange harvesting of the standing crops. In the preliminary order the Magistrate described Shri K. Iboyaima Singh (Chairman of the registered Society representing that Society) as the first party, and Th. Modhu Singh (Secretary of the unregistered Society representing that Society) as the second party.
(3.) THE second party alleged in its written statement dated 30th of August 1967 that the unregistered Society is comprised of 61 persons, that the land in dispute forms part of village No. 64 B. T., bearing the name Kumbi, that the set of 61 persons had reclaimed the land about 10 years ago, that they had built an earthen bund around the land at considerable expense, a part of which was contributed by the Government that they had also dug a channel to drain out the surplus water out of the land, that the members of the registered Society had managed to secure an allotment of this land on 18 -11 -1966 from the Director of Settlement, that at their instance the Chief Commissioner cancelled that allotment in a revision lodged by them, and that that cancellation had been challenged by the registered Society by a writ petition filed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (which was then pending). It was alleged further that the members of the unregistered Society had been continuously in possession of the land during the last 10 years and that it were they who had grown the crops in the year 1967, a part of which they had harvested before the land was attached. As many as 14 documents and 10 affidavits were filed in support of the allegations made in the written statement.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.