NAOSAM NINGOL CHANDAM ONGBI NUNGSHITOMBI DEVI Vs. RISHANG KEISHING, CHIEF MINISTER OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of C. Chaoba Singh. Her case is that her husband was arrested by some personnel of the 5th Bn. C.R.P.F. (Central Reserve Police Force) on 10 -1 -1981 at about 7.30 P. M. from her residence. As Chaoba Singh did not return even by 22 -2 -1981, the petitioner submitted an application on that day to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Operation) to enlighten her about the whereabouts of her husband. There was no reply to this request and so the petitioner brought the matter to the notice of the local M.L.A. Shri Y. Kula Singh, who raised the matter on the floor of the Assembly by putting the following question on 31 -7 -1981 : - "Is it a fact that whereabout of Chandam Chaoba Singh, s/o late Gulamjat Singh of Pukhao Terapur (I. E.) who was arrested on 10 -1 -1981 by the C. R. P. F. from his residence at about 7 -30 P. M. is not yet known - The Chief Minister answered the question in a single word "yes". A perusal of the concerned file which was produced by the learned Advocate General, Manipur, on our direction shows that Shri Kula Singh had put some supplementary questions and had wanted to know if Chaoba Singh was alive or dead. The Chief Minister had stated that the missing person was not arrested by the police and the Army Authority had also intimated that the individual in question was not in their custody. Shri Kula Singh further stated that though one person arrested along with Chaoba Singh was released, it was not known whether Chaoba was alive or dead: and if he is alive, he asked the Chief Minister, to give information of his whereabouts. The Chief Minister agreed to look into the matter further. It is the case of the State that thereafter efforts were made to find out Chaoba Singh, or to know about his whereabouts, but nothing could be known. This has been stated in the affidavit on behalf of respondents 1, and 5 to 9 sworn by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur which was filed on 25 -2 -1982. The case of the Commandant, 5th Bn. C. R. P. F. is that Chaoba Singh had been arrested on the night between 13th and 14th of Jan. 1981, to be precise at about 1.30 A. M. and had been released at about 5.30 P. M. of 14 -1 -1981. As such, it is submitted by the Commandant of the batallion that the writ petition does not lie and is liable to be rejected.

(2.) THERE is no doubt that if this Court were to accept that Chaoba Singh had been released on 14 -1 -81, or for that matter on any other date by the C.R.P.F., the petition has no legs to stand. On the other hand, if it be a case of "counterfeited release," writ as prayed for, could be issued. The latter proposition has the support of the high authority of Barnardo v. Ford (Gossage's case), (1891) 4 All ER Rep. 522, which is a decision of the House of Lords. This is not disputed by the learned Advocate -General, Assam, who has appeared for respondent No. 4.

(3.) THE important question which has, therefore, to be decided is whether Chaoba Singh had in fact been released as contended by the Commandant. In support of his case, the Commandant seeks to rely on (1) the entries in Apprehension Register; (2) two sitreps dt. 14 -1 -1981 and 15 -1 -1981: and (3) a letter dated 15 -1 -1981 addressed by the Adjutant of the Battalion to the Headquarters (M) Sector. These are Annexures -1, 3 to 5 of the affidavit filed by the Commandant. These documents tell that Chaoba Singh had been arrested on 13th/14th of Jan. 1981, along with two others from Pukhao area - the two others being Tharankou and L. Lala. Of these three, two were released as directed by the Army authorities as they were 'white' - these being Chaoba Singh and Tharangou Singh, L. Lala was, however, handed over to the Army on 15 -1 -1981. The learned Advocate General, Assam, strongly contends that the case of respondent No. 4 being duly supported by contemporaneous documents which were maintained in the official course of business merits full acceptance by this Court. According to the learned Counsel, there is nothing to doubt the authenticity or veracity of these documents. Shri L. Nandakumar Singh, on the other hand, contends that the aforesaid documents had been manufactured to suit the case of respondent No. 4, and we should not place reliance on these cooked up documents. According to him, there was not even a whisper of release when the Chief Minister had answered the question of Shri Kula Singh on the floor of the Assembly on 31 -7 -1981 and as such it is a fake story.