KHOMDRAM IBOMCHA SINGH Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of an order passed by the S.D.M., Mao on 6 -8 -1980 in Criminal Case No. 12 of 1960. The petitioner herein filed a complaint on 11 -2 -1960 against 11 persons under Seas. 149/386/506, I.P.C. in the Court of Shri Gumamani Singh, who was the predecessor in office of Shri Gokulchand Singh as First Class Magistrate, Mao. Out of the accused persons, accused Nos. 7 to 10 were officials of the Forest Department of the Manipur Administration, accused No. 7 being a Forest Ranger and the rest forest guards. The complaint against them was that on 16 -10 -1958, when the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the lime quarry Soukom as lessee from the Government, his possession was disturbed by the lessee of the neighbouring Kangkhanyumbi lime quarry and proceeding under Section 144, Cri. P.C. were started against him and on 15 -11 -1958, the final order was passed by A. D. M. confirming the possession of the petitioner and prohibiting the respondent therein from interfering with such possession, but that on 8 -2 -1959 at about 12 -00 noon, the eleven accused persons came with intent to cause wrongful loss to the petitioner and disturbed his possession by dispersing the labourers at the point of guns and deadly weapons and forcibly took away the properties of the petitioner under threat and duress.

(2.) ON receipt of this complaint Shri Gunamani Singh, examined the petitioner on 11 -2 -1959 and he sent the complaint for enquiry and report to the Officer in charge of Mayang Imphal Police Station. I take it that this procedure was adopted as provided under Section 202, Cri. P.C. The Police duly reported to the Magistrate stating that there was sufficient evidence against the accused persons. The Magistrate took up the case on 16 -7 -1959 and perused the report submitted by the Police. He saw from the said report that accused No. 7 was a Forest Ranger and that there was an allegation against him under Section 188 I.P.C. for alleged violation of the A. D. M.'s order under Section 144, Cri. P.C. He therefore submitted the papers to the A. D. M. for necessary action. The A. D. M. appears to have kept the papers with him until 9 -4 -1960. We do not know what happened in the A. D. M.'s Court as those papers are not before me. But by an order dated 9 -4 -1960, the A. D. M. appears to have sent back the case to the Magistrate. The said order of the A. D. M. is also not before me.

(3.) IN the meantime there was a change in the presiding Officer of the Court and Shri Gokulchand Singh took over as Magistrate from Shri Gunamani Singh. The Court received a letter from the Chief Forest Officer dated 1 -8 -1960 stating that he considered it necessary to obtain sanction of the authority concerned. He added further that it would be desirable that an enquiry should be held to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint before obtaining sanction for prosecution, in view of the fact that accused Nos. 7 to 10 were officials of the Forest Department and that the said officials had held a departmental enquiry in connection with a complaint under orders of the department and the properties mentioned in the complaint were seized by the said officials in connection with. an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. On receipt of this letter Shri Gokulchand Singh passed an order on 6 -8 -1960 that he considered that an enquiry should be held to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint before the case was proceeded with further and he therefore forwarded the case to the Second Class Magistrate (S.D.C. Sadar and Hill) for enquiry and report. I take it that this was also done under Section 202, Cri P.C. It is against this order passed on 6 -8 -1960 that this revision petition has been filed.