MOTRANGTHEM YAISKUL SINGH Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATION,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has to be accepted.

(2.) ONE Ningthoujam Magha Singh filed a petition before the S.D.M., I.E and Th. on 5.5.1962, stating that he has been in possession of 3 sangams and one loushel of land covered by patta No. 129/234 -Kh. Pana, Thoubal Tahsil for about 26 years, that the petitioners herein, who are father and sons forcibly entered the land on 12.6.1962 with their cattle and over -ploughed the land and that this dispute was likely to cause a breach, of the peace. He therefore prayed for action under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code This complaint was sent for report to the Police by the Magistrate. The Police reported to the Magistrate on 12.6.1962, saying that that the petitioners were found to have entered the land forcibly on 1.5.1962 and cultivated the same, that they continued in possession until then and further that when the complainant asked them not to enter the land, the petitioners threatened him toy holding dangerous weapons and that if the complainant's party came face to face with the petitioners' party, there was likelihood of breach of the peace. The report further said that the Police Officer arrested the petitioners under Section 151, Criminal Procedure Code to prevent the occurrence of a breach of the peace and it was prayed that proceeding under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code may be drawn up against the petitioners and they may not be released unless they executed an interim bond for Rs. 500/ - with sureties as provided under Section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code The petitioners were accordingly produced under arrest before the Magistrate on 13.6.1962. The Magistrate -thereupon passed the order, which is now complained against stating that the accused had been produced under arrest, that be had seen the Police -report, that bail was moved on behalf of the accused and that they may go on bail on executing an interim bond for Rs. 500/ - with one surety for a like sum to keep the peace during the pendency of the trial. Thereafter, he adjourned the case to 15.6.1962 for drawing up a preliminary order under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code On 15.6.1962, he proceeded. to pass the preliminary order.

(3.) NOW the objection raised by the petitioners is that the Police should not have arrested them for a proceeding under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code and further that without drawing up even a preliminary order under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate -should not have directed the petitioners to execute an interim bond under Section 117(3), Criminal Procedure Code The learned Sessions Judge has made the reference as., be was satisfied that the order of the Magistrate dated 13.6.1962 was illegal. The learned Assistant Government Advocate who appeared before the Sessions. Judge did not support the Magistrate's order. Nor did he attempt to do so before this Court.