Decided on February 17,1973

Samurou Gur, Khansary Producers And Sugarcane Growers Co -Op Society Ltd Appellant
Santhem Ibomcha Singh Respondents


BAHARUL ISLAM, J. - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Manipur. It arises out of a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code and involves an area of 22 acres of land. There are three parties to the proceeding. In pursuance of the preliminary order passed under Sub -Section (1) of Section 145, Cri. P.C, the three parties filed their respective written statements, affidavits and documents. The learned Magistrate, in due course, declared possession in favour of the first party.
(2.) SHRI Imo Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third party and supporting the reference, has made three submissions before me; (i) that the Magistrate has omitted to consider nine documents, viz,. Ext. Nos. C/1 to C/9 filed by the third party, (ii) that the learned Magistrate rejected the affidavits filed by the third party on untenable grounds, and (iii) that the learned Magistrate went beyond his jurisdiction in criticising the correctness of the order of the Judicial Commissioner in Criminal Reference Case No. 21 of 1970 (Ext. C/2) and holding that the Judicial Commissioner had no power under the law to declare possession in favour of any party under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code
(3.) I have been led through the letter of reference of the Sessions Judge and also through the impugned judgement of the Magistrate. Although the Magistrate has not mentioned in his judgement exhibits No. C/1 to C/9 as such, it appears from the judgement that he has referred to and considered the contents of the documents themselves. In fact; the relevant documents are exhibits C/2, C/4, C/5 and C/6. Ext. C/2, is the order of the Judicial Commissioner in a reference in a previous proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code between some of the parties in respect of the same land, Ext. C/4 purports to be a document showing delivery of possession in the said proceedings in favour of the present third party, Ext. C/5 is to the same effect as of Ext. C/4. It was by way of execution of the order as per document Ext. C/4. Ext C/6 is the Dag Chitha which covers the land in dispute. Ext. C/6 does not bear anybody's name as owner of the land, inasmuch as, the land in question is admittedly Government khas land. Exts. 7, 8 and 9 do not tend to prove possession at all. It is not correct to say that the Magistrate has omitted front consideration any material document filed by the third party. Under Sub -Section (4) of Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code it is the duty of the Magistrate to peruse and consider the written statements, affidavits and documents filed by the parties and then come to the question of possession in favour of a party, if any; but the reasons for accepting some documents and rejecting others are of the Magistrate. Even, if he goes wrong in appreciating some of these affidavits or documents that cannot be said to vitiate the order on the question of possession. The first and second submissions of learned counsel have no substance.;

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