KOIJAM TOMBI SINGH Vs. CHONGTHAM PISAK SINGH,
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Koijam Tombi Singh
Chongtham Pisak Singh,
Click here to view full judgement.
LAKSHMI NARAIN, J. -
(1.) K . Tombi Singh has filed this revision petition against the order of the Superintendent of Police passed in his capacity as Magistrate, first class, regarding the suspected property, i.e., some 4 or 6 lorry -loads of salvage material in the shape of zali and iron posts etc., seized from the possession of his carriers and thereafter delivering its possession to the respondent Ch. Pisak Singh who is the other claimant. The above material was handed over to the respondent without any condition whatsoever.
(2.) DURING the proceedings of this petition some adjournments were taken by the parties for compromise but to no effect.
(3.) THE facts disclosed from the record before the court are as follows : two drivers of Tombi Singh who were deputed to bring 2 lorry -loads of salvage material from the dump belonging to him reached Imphal on or about 7 -3 -49 and complained to Tombi Singh that their lorries containing iron scraps, motor vehicle parts, brass scraps etc., were seized by the men of Ch. Pisak Singh respondent on the way beyond Churachandpur and unloaded there. They had, therefore, come back and reached Imphal with empty lorries. It appears that on getting this information Tombi Singh made a written complaint to the S. P. on 8 -3 -49 which was sent by him to the O/C N. C. C. for enquiry and report. On 12 -3 -49 Tombi Singh's other 4 lorries bringing alike salvage material were seized by N. C. C. Police. The respondent Ch. Pisak Singh alleged that the material contained in the 4 lorries was stolen by Tombi Singh's men from his dump area and thus he claimed it as his and that it should be handed over to him. Tombi Singh was also making repeated requests by means of his applications to the S. P. that the property belonged to him and it should be restored to him. Thus the rival claimants of the property were the parties in this case. Tombi Singh was claiming that it belonged to him and he had brought it from his own dump area, while Ch. Pisak Singh was maintaining that the same was stolen from his dump area. Tombi Singh has been requesting the police either to hand him over the seized property or that the case should be tried for its legal possession.
The S. I. of B. P. S. made his report in this matter on 20 -4 -49 which runs as follows :
"In forwarding herewith the petition filed by Sjt. Ch. Pisak Singh of Nambul Mapal Huidrom Leikai and other connected papers I have the honour to report that the following facts have been brought to your kind notice for your kind disposal. That the articles noted in the agreement do not include the words iron scraps. So the 2nd party is not entitled to bring the iron scraps in question seized by the police. If the latter wants to bring them he is to show proper authority to defend his own case. In addition to the above the enclosed C. M.'s order shows that if anybody wants to bring any goods from Burma to Manipur he is to accompany custom certificate. In absence of this it does not clearly show that it was brought from Burma and indirectly shows that it was brought from Burma by unfair means or it was taken from the jurisdiction of the petitioner. The two passes concerned which were issued to Sjt. Thouchom Ibomcha Singh of Keisambpat, under lorries Nos. A. S M. 276 and A. S. M. No. 488. A. S. M. 276 and A. S. M. 573 show that it does not mention iron scraps. So it appears that iron scraps were brought from somewhere else and not from Burma. Under the circumstances I should say that it apparently shows that those iron scraps were brought by unfair means from somewhere else and not from Burma. In the circumstances I think spot enquiry is not necessary. The seized articles belonged to Sjt. Ch. Pisak Singh. The seized articles may now kindly be returned to Sjt Ch. Pisak Singh."
('Note:' This is to be noted that this S. I. in the first instance had reported that enquiry in Burma was necessary and also that the case seems to be of civil nature and should be sent to civil court. The last para of his original report was cut down by him (though still decipherable under the cutting) and substituted by a new one probably afterwards as it appears to be in a different ink).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.