THOUNAOJAM MUNAL SINGH Vs. KARAM IBOYAIMA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference Under Section 438, Criminal P.C. by Shri P. N. Roy, the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, covers two criminal revision cases Nos. 1 and 2 of 1969 arising out of two proceedings Under Section 145, Criminal P.C. dealt with by the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Bishenpur, in two separate orders, each dated 10 -12 -1968. Practically speaking, only two points wore urged before Shri P. N. Roy, namely. (1) that notice of the proceedings had not been served on all the parties concerned and so the proceedings stood vitiated, and (2) that the Sub -divisional Magistrate had not perused the written statements, affidavits and documents filed by the contestants and so his conclusion lacked validity. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the finding, while discussing the first point, that the notice of the proceedings had actually been not served on all the parties concerned and on that basis expressed the view that the proceedings stood vitiated. He found no substance in the second objection inasmuch as, it was held, the Sub -divisional Magistrate had digested all the material on record before giving his final orders in the two cases. The precise recommendation made by him as a consequence of these conclusions was that orders in both the proceedings should be quashed and the cases remanded to the Sub -divisional Magistrate for fresh decision after serving notices on all the parties concerned.

(2.) SHRI A. Nilamani Singh, representing the defeated party, challenged in this Court the correctness of the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge that the Sub -divisional Magistrate had carefully gone through all the material on record before giving his findings in the two cases.

(3.) THE second party alleged in its written statement dated 30th of August 1967 that the unregistered Society is comprised of 61 persons, that the land in dispute forms part of village No. 64 B. T., bearing the name Kumbi, that the set of 61 persons had reclaimed the land about 10 years ago, that they had built an earthen bund around the land at considerable expense, a part of which was contributed by the Government that they had also dug a channel to drain out the surplus water out of the land, that the members of the registered Society had managed to secure an allotment of this land on 18 -11 -1966 from the Director of Settlement, that at their instance the Chief Commissioner cancelled that allotment in a revision lodged by them, and that that cancellation had been challenged by the registered Society by a writ petition filed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (which was then pending). It was alleged further that the members of the unregistered Society had been continuously in possession of the land during the last 10 years and that it were they who had grown the crops in the year 1967, a part of which they had harvested before the land was attached. As many as 14 documents and 10 affidavits were filed in support of the allegations made in the written statement.