K IBOPISHAK SINGH Vs. A SANAKHOMBA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order passed by the trial Court under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. has been challenged in this case by the second party, who contested the proceedings in the Court below in his capacity as Chairman of a Collective Farming Co-operative Society.

(2.) This litigation has a long history to which I do not feel disposed to refer in detail. Suffice it to say that its life appears to begin with that of the aforesaid Society which was born in the year 1969-70 when a scramble ensued for securing allotment of a land of a de-reserved fishery. Nevertheless, I must also express my dismay, disappointment and concern for the unabated tendency of the litigants to take resort to the provisions of Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. and the failure of the Courts below in this state to appreciate the scope of the legal provisions and to respond adequately and appropriately to the situation. I had occasions, and indeed several, when, in dealing with similar applications I noticed this failure and I am reiterating my anxiety once again as I consider it to be the duty of the higher judiciary to condition the legal motivation of the subordinate Courts and endow them thereby with a direction and purpose to render justice according to law. If delayed justice is a curse, it is the duty of the judiciary to apply itself honestly and vigorously to trace its causes and cast off its spell.

(3.) The immediate cause of initiation of the proceeding in the instant case was an application by the first party made on 5-11-1979 for passing an order under S. 144 Cr. P.C. against the second party and his men. The Police also recommended a proceeding to be drawn up under S. 144 Cr. P.C. against both the parties. But, the learned Magistrate, instead, passed an order on 7-12-1979, drawing up proceedings under S. 145 Cr. P.C, directing both parties to put in their respective statements of claim of actual possession of the disputed land. However, the proceeding eventually came to be dropped, but was surprisingly revived, pursuant to an order passed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge, who directed the proceeding to continue by allowing the first party's prayer for correction of the boundaries and the descriptions of the disputed land, which had been rejected by the trial Court.