HAOKHOTHANG Vs. OTKHOKAI KUKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has to be accepted. It arises out of proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.PC started at the instance of the petitioner who is the Chief of a Kuki village against the respondents who are certain Kukis of the said village who migrated to another village. The petitioner's complaint was that the respondents who were in possession of the lands in dispute left the said village on 11 -4 -1960 vacating the Ian3s, which were 'then taken possession of by the petitioner and other villagers and cultivated. Later the respondents attempted to re -enter the said lands on 25 -7 -1960 while the petitioner and his men were engaged in transplanting paddy and a breach of the peace became therefore imminent. The petition was filed on 27 -7 -1960. The learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order and kept the land under attachment and both parties filed written statements and affidavits in support of their respective cases. Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed a final order which is now complained against. In the said final order he has simply stated that he has perused the written statements and affidavits and that on due enquiry he was satisfied that the claim of actual possession of the second party on the date of the preliminary order was true. He has not given any reasons to show how he arrived at that conclusion. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) has now stated in his order of reference that the order of the Magistrate does not give any reasons for the decision which he has arrived at and that the case should therefore be remanded to another Magistrate for further enquiry.

(2.) I entirely agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Though proceedings Under Section 145 Cr.PC are summary proceedings, they are judicial proceedings and the order of the Magistrate who deals with such a case must show that he has understood the respective cases of the two parties and that there were reasons satisfactory to him which made him prefer the case of one party as against that of the other. Section 145(4) states that, if possible, the Magistrate must decide the question whether any or which of the party was at the date of the order passed' Under Section 145(1) in possession of the land. If he is deciding the question, he will have to state his reasons. His decision is liable to scrutiny by superior Courts who have to exercise powers of revision against his order. Unless the Magistrate gives his reasons it be not possible for the superior Courts to see whether the decision was based on valid reasons. If no reasons are given it is not possible for the superior Courts to know whether the Magistrate has applied his mind to the case or has acted arbitrarily.

(3.) A mere statement by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the second party was in possession is no decision at all as provided Under Section 145(4). His order. shows that he has simply adopted the wording in form No. 22 schedule 5 Cr.PC in passing the order. The order mentioned in the said form is something which has. to follow after he gives his decision Under Section 145(4)f as is clear from Sub -section (6) of Section 145. It is -specifically provided in Section 145(6) that if the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was or should be treated as being in such possession of the land, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be in possession. Thus the order contained in form No. 22 of schedule 5 is to follow the decision of the Magistrate which must be based on proper reasons. It has to be held therefore that there has not been a proper enquiry in this case as contemplated Under Section 145(4).