RANGALANG G S Vs. DEBARDAO LANGTHASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 1.2.1971 Debardao Langthasa G. B. representing the villagers of Yah village made a complaint against Rangalang and 11 others as well as some others whose names were not known to him, residing in Chotonienglo village, alleging that there was apprehension of breach of peace on account of the latter's trespassing into their village disregarding the recognised boundaries between the two villages. Paragraph 2 of this petition discloses the following fact; "That, there is distinct boundary between your petitioner's village and that of the accused persons as fixed in the year 1948 by the order of the S. D. O. N. C. Hills and since then agreed upon peacefully between both (sic) the villages." On receipt of this application, the District Magistrate, North Cachar Hills, directed the police to enquire into the matter under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of drawing up proceedings under that section. On receipt of the police report on 2 -3 -71, the District Magistrate drew up a preliminary order under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and asked the parties to submit written statements and documents with regard to their possession of the disputed land. The Second party submitted written statement through Rangalang G. B. and Langdibuing on 24 -3 -71. In paragraph 1 of their statement the following facts are disclosed : -

(2.) MR . B. K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, argued the case in both the matters. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee the learned counsel for the opposite parties, with regard to the maintainability of the first application which was one under Rule 15 of the Administration of Justice Rules North Cachar Hills District and later on allowed to be also under Section 439/561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and clause 4 of the Assam High Court Order, 1948. One of the 2nd party, Rangalang Jame who is common in both the cases, filed later on an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 439/561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and clause 4 of the Assam High Court Order, 1948 which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1972. As a matter of fact, this preliminary point was earlier taken before the learned Single Judge who heard the case. It appears that reference was made at the Bar to several decisions of this Court, mostly of Single Bench and one of Division Bench wherein it was pointed out that there was some conflict of views. It was because of this reason that the learned Single Judge thought it fit to place the matter before the Chief Justice for necessary orders and that is how it has come before this Division Bench.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for both sides, it is now common ground that there is no conflict of views in the decisions referred to in the referring order. As a matter of fact, there is no authoritative decision of this Court with regard to the maintainability of an application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code out of a proceeding under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code arising in the Hill areas where the Administration of Justice Rules 1937 and other laws obtain. Since it is possible that this point may crop up again and again before this Court we gave an opportunity to the learned Counsel appearing on both sides to address us so that we may give a decision on the point.