SAMUROU GUR, KHANSARY PRODUCERS AND SUGARCANE GROWERS CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. Vs. SANTHEM IBOMCHA SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the Sessions Judge, Manipur. It arises out of a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. and involves an area of 22 acres of land. There are three parties to the proceeding. In pursuance of the preliminary order passed under Sub -section (1) of Section 145, Cri.P.C., the three parties filed their respective written statements, affidavits and documents The learned Magistrate, in due course, declared possession in favour of the first party.

(2.) SHRI Imo Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the third party and supporting the reference, has made three submissions before me: (i) that the Magistrate has omitted to consider nine documents, viz., Ext. Nos. C/l to C/9 filed by the third party, . (ii) that the learned Magistrate rejected the affidavits filed by the third party on untenable grounds, and (iii) that the learned Magistrate went beyond his jurisdiction in criticising: the correctness of the order of the Judicial Commissioner in Criminal Reference Case No. 21 of 1970 (Ext. C/2) and holding that the Judicial Commissioner had no power under the law to declare possession in favour of any party under Section 145, Cri.P.C.

(3.) UNDER Sub -section (4) of Section 145, Criminal P.C. it is the duty of the Magistrate to peruse and consider the written statements, affidavits and documents filed by the parties and then come to the question of possession in favour of a party, if any; but the reasons for accepting some documents and rejecting others are of the Magistrate, Even, if he goes wrong in appreciating some of these affidavits or documents that cannot be said to vitiate the order on the question of possession. The first and second submissions of learned Counsel have no substance.