CHINGANGBAM IBOMCHA SINGH Vs. OKRAM TOMBI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed by the complainant Ch. Ibomacha Singh is directed against the order dated 4th of September 1967 by which Shri C. Upendra Singh, Magistrate First Class, Manipur, discharged the accused O. Tombi Singh. The prayer made is for the reversal of that order and for remand of the case to the trial Court for proceeding with it in accordance with the provisions of law.

(2.) IN the complaint lodged by C. Ibomacha Singh it was alleged that he had purchased the land in dispute per registered sale deed dated 31 -1 -1961 from its owner Yumnam Ibohal Singh and that the latter had delivered the possession to him on the same day. The land was then made over by the complainant to O. Achou Singh for cultivation as tenant and the latter continued to cultivate it until the year 1966. Thereafter, the complainant engaged Ch. Ibotombi Singh as the tenant for cultivation of the land and this Ibotombi Singh after ploughing the land sowed paddy seeds therein on 23 -6 -1967. However, on the morning of 24 -6 -1967, when Ibotombi Singh was working on the land, the accused O. Tombi Singh entered upon the land and over -ploughed the same forcibly. Ch. Ibotombi Singh protested against the high -handedness committed by the accused, but the accused scared him into silence by brandishing a dao and threatening to behead him therewith. The owner Ibomacha Singh lodged a complaint against Tombi Singh on 28 -6 -1967 under sections 426 447 and 506 I. P. C. After recording the preliminary evidence, the Court summoned the accused under those three sections of the Indian Penal Code. The accused defended himself and the Court ultimately discharged him on the finding that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case. Having felt aggrieved with that order of discharge, the complainant has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) SHRI T. Bhubon Singh, representing the accused, raised the preliminary point that the complainant had gone wrong in filing the revision petition directly in this Court instead of first approaching the Court of the Sessions Judge. He, therefore, urged that the revision petition should be thrown out on that score alone, Shri Bhattacharjee the counsel for the complainant, submitted, on the other hand, that this Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Sessions Judge to entertain revision petitions and as such the objection raised by Shri Bhubon Singh is without any merit. Shri Bhattacharjee also emphasised that the revision petition having been admitted by my learned predecessor it would be unjust to reject it more then 20 months after its admission on the sole ground that as a matter of practice the revision should have first been instituted in the Court of Sessions Judge.