MAYENGBAM YAIMA SINGH Vs. MANIPUR ADMINISTRATIONTL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent herein filed a petition before the S. D. M. I. E. and The stating that the land under patta No. 66/730 belonged to him, that he had been in cultivating possession of it for 15 to 16 years, that in 1962 he raised paddy thereon, that on 19 -11 - 1952, the petitioner with his son forcibly entered in the field and began to reap the growing paddy, that when the second respondent protested, the petitioner threatened his life and that the said conduct of the petitioner will cause a serious breach of the peace which may lead to bloodshed. The Magistrate sent it for a Police report on the same date and the Police reported on 26 -11 -1962, supporting the second respondent and stating that the land in question belonged to him and that proceedings under Section107 Cr.P.C. should be drawn up against the petitioner.

(2.) THIS issue of arrest warrant is clearly illegal. No doubt, Section 114 Cr.P.C. provides that whenever it appears to the Magistrate, upon the report of a Police Officer or upon other information (the substance of which report or information shall be recorded) that there is reason to fear the commission of a breach of the peace and that such breach of the peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by the immediate arrest of such person, the Magistrate may at any time issue a warrant for his arrest. But there is nothing in the order -sheet to show that the proviso to Section 114 Cr.P.C. was satisfied in this case. I have already given instructions to the Magistrates in earlier orders regarding such arrest in proceedings under Sec, 107 Cr.P.C. It appears to be the practice in this Territory not only for the Magistrates to order arrest illegally in the security proceedings, but even for the Police to arrest persons in such proceedings without any warrant from the Magistrates. Such irregularities and illegalities committed by the Police and the Magistrates should immediately stop. Serious notice will be taken by this Court if they are found to occur again.

(3.) I stated that the matter was posted to 24 -12 - 1962 from 27 -11 -1962. On 14 -12 -1962, the petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate stating that the proceedings under Section 107 started against him were illegal, that he did not know which land the second respondent was claiming as his in patta No. 66/730, but that the petitioner was in possession of 15 and odd bighas and had raised crops thereon and he should not be prevented from harvesting the crops raised by him. The Magistrate dealt with this petition on 24 -12 -1962 and heard arguments on 26 -12 -1962 and 27 -12 -1962 and posted it to 29 -12 -1962 for orders. But no orders were pronounced on 29 -12 -1962, 4 -1 -1963, 18 -1 -1963 and 28 -1 -1963 to which dates the case was successively posted.