SMT. APAMBI KABUINI Vs. KAKHANGAI KABUL AND OTHERS
LAWS(GAU)-1970-6-13
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 11,1970

Smt. Apambi Kabuini Appellant
VERSUS
Kakhangai Kabul And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.S. Bindra, J. - (1.) This reference under Sec. 438, Criminal Procedure Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, relates to an intermediary order dated 19 -7 -1968 passed by the District Magistrate, Manipur, at the instance of Kakhangai Kabul and 14 others against whom an order under Sec. 144(1), Criminal Procedure Code had been made by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Imphal West, on a petition instituted by Smt. Apambi Kabuini.
(2.) Smt. Apambi Kabuini had complained that the members of the other party were threatening interference in her established possession over a piece of land in village Kakhulong and so she prayed that they be restrained from embarking upon such a course. The Sub -divisional Magistrate passed an order under Sec. 144(1), Criminal Procedure Code on 12th July 1968 in the manner prayed for. Aggrieved by that order Kakhangai Kabul and others moved an application on 19 -7 -1968 before the District Magistrate, Manipur, under sub -section (4) of Sec. 144, Criminal Procedure Code for rescission thereof. On the same date the district Magistrate passed the following order after hearing only the petitioners before him: Presented to day the 19th July 1968. Heard the petitioner. The operation of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 12 -7 -1968 is stayed. Neither party will enter the land in dispute during the pendency of these proceedings. The records be called and a notice be served on the O. P. to come up on 29 -7 -68 at 2 -30 P. M. A copy of this order be served on the O. P. and O/C. Imphal Police Station.
(3.) Smt. Apambi Kabuini filed a revision petition on 22 -7 -1968 in the Court of the Sessions Judge challenging the validity of that order. That revision petition was heard by Shri P. N. Roy, Additional Sessions Judge. In the opinion of Shri Roy the order made by the District Magistrate was in excess of the authority vested in him under Sec. 144(4), Criminal Procedure Code and so he recommended that the order should be quashed.;


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