The High Court has the power to intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution to prevent gross illegalities and manifest injustice in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even if the proceeding is not a trial for an offence under the Code.

Goswami, C.J. :- On 1-2-1971 Debardao Langthasa G.B. representing the villagers of Yah village made a complaint against Rangalang and 11 others as well as some others whose names were not known to him residing in Chotonienglo village, alleging that there was apprehension of breach of peace on account of the latter's trespassing into their village disregarding the recognised boundaries between the two villages. Paragraph 2 of this petition discloses the following fact; "That there is distinct boundary between your petitioner's village and that of the accused persons as fixed in the year 1948 by the order of the S.D.O. N.C. Hills and since then agreed upon peacefully between both (sic) the villages." On receipt of this application, the District Magistrate, North Cachar Hills, directed the police to enquire into the matter under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of drawing up proceedings under that section. On receipt of the police report on 2-3-71, the District Magistrate drew up a preliminary order under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code and asked the parties to submit written statements and documents with regard to their possession of the disputed land. The Second party submitted written statement through Rangalang G.B. and Langdibuing on 24-3-71. In paragraph 1 of their statement the following facts are disclosed :-

"That, your humble aggrieved complainants are bona fide cultivators of Choto-Nianglao and made jhums situated within the lawful boundary of Ch. Nianaloa allotted by the then S.D.O. of North Cachar Hills during the time of British regime and it was recognised by N.C. Hills, District Council. Haflong vide Memo No. Rev/B/2/71/2 dated 21-7-70."

They also submitted a sketch map where a boundary line is described between the two villages. The learned Magistrate examined two witnesses from each village and recorded their statements on 23rd and 24th April, 1971 by visiting the area in dispute. After recording the statements he also made another "spot enquiry" on the 25th of April, 1971 in order to appreciate the evidence which was recorded by him on the previous two days. After carefully examining the evidence, the learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that he must give effect to the boundary of 1948 which tallied with the evidence given by the First party before him and which also substantially corresponded with what he actually found on the spot. In that view of the matter, he declared the disputed area which is abutting the boundary between the two village to be in possession of the Yah Villagers by his order dated 27-4-1971. This order is impugned before us in Criminal Revision 95 of 1971 as also in Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1972.

2. Mr. B. K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners, argued the case in both the matters. A preliminary objection was taken by Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee the learned counsel for the opposite parties, with regard to the maintainability of the first application which was one under Rule 15 of the Administration of Justice Rules North Cachar Hills District and later on allowed to be also under Section 439/561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and clause 4 of the Assam High Court Order, 1948. One of the 2nd party. Rangalang Jame who is common in both the cases, filed later on an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 439/561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and clause 4 of the Assam High Court Order, 1948 which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 64 of 1972. As a mater of fact, this preliminary point was earlier taken before the learned Single Judge who heard the case. It appears that reference was made at the Bar to several decision of this Court, mostly of Single Bench and one of Division Bench wherein it was pointed out that there was some conflict of views. It was because of this reason that the learned Single Judge thought it fit to place the matter before the Chief Justice for necessary orders and