Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Laiphrakpam Leiren Singh
Versus
Nongthombom Leiren Singh
Criminal Ref. Case No. 21 of 1966
Decided On : 09-12-1966
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 145 - POSSESSION OF LAND - REFERENCE TO HIGH COURT - ADMISSIBILITY OF AFFIDAVIT - PERUSAL OF AFFIDAVITS - INTERFERENCE BY HIGH COURT IN REVISION.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over possession of land in Manipur. Petitioners claimed to have purchased the land in 1957 and obtained mutation of names in 1958. Respondents claimed to be in possession since 1957. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) passed an order under Section 145(6) Cr.P.C. declaring respondents to be in possession and entitled to possession until evicted in due course of law. Petitioners challenged the order before the Additional Sessions Judge, who made a reference to the High Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
1. The SDM acted within his powers in admitting the affidavit of the 5th respondent on 5-2-65, as Section 145(9) and Section 540 Cr.P.C. empower the Magistrate to summon and examine witnesses at any stage of the proceedings. 2. The SDM failed to peruse the affidavits filed by the parties, as required by Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. He simply disposed of the affidavits in one sentence, stating that they go to support the claims of the respective parties but that the documents are important. 3. The SDM did not consider the oral evidence on record and did not apply his mind to the affidavits. His order is erroneous, materially irregular, and liable to be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the SDM acted illegally in admitting the affidavit of the 5th respondent on 5-2-65? 2. Whether the SDM failed to peruse the affidavits filed by the parties, as required by Section 145(4) Cr.P.C.? 3. Whether the SDM's order is erroneous, materially irregular, and liable to be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 145(9) and Section 540 Cr.P.C. empower the Magistrate to summon and examine witnesses at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, the SDM acted within his powers in admitting the affidavit of the 5th respondent. 2. The word "peruse" means "to examine in detail or to revise or to read attentively or critically." The SDM did not "peruse" the affidavits filed by the parties, as he simply disposed of them in one sentence without giving reasons for accepting or rejecting them. Therefore, he failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 145(4) Cr.P.C. 3. The SDM's failure to peruse the affidavits and consider the oral evidence on record resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, his order is erroneous, materially irregular, and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision: The reference is accepted. The case is sent back for fresh disposal in the light of the observations made by the High Court. The Sessions Judge should make over the case to another Magistrate for disposal according to law. The parties are not allowed to let in any further evidence. The Magistrate should "peruse" the evidence and also give findings on the effects of the previous orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and pass a well-considered order after hearing the arguments.
This case arises out of a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, under section 438, Cr. P. C. to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Imphal East, Manipur, dated 9-3-65 passed by him in N. F. I. R. case No. 309 of 1964 under section 145 (6) Cr. P. C. declaring that the respondents were in possession of the disputed land at the relevant time, that they are entitled to the possession thereof until they are evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding all disturbance of such possessions until such eviction.
2. The brief facts of the case which led to the reference in question are as follows : There are about 6½ paris of land in Matai village, covered by Pattas No. 1/282, 2/106 and 3/136 Imphal East. The case of the petitioners herein is that the petitioners Nos. 1, 6 and 7 purchased the said land in 1957 from the heirs of late Sir Churachand Singh, the Maharajah of Manipur under a registered sale deed, that they got their names mutated in the above mentioned pattas, in Mutation Case No. 642 of 1957 of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal East on 9-9-1958, that since the date of the purchase, they have been in physical possession and enjoyment of the land without any interference by any one, that the remaining petitioners herein took on lease 5 paras of land out of the disputed land from the purchasers and that all of them jointly cultivated the land. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the 5th respondent is the Manager of the present Maharajah of Manipur, that the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the disputed land since 1957, that the 5th respondents lessees were delivering the yield to him and that the petitioners herein have not been in possession of the land in question.
3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Imphal East, drew up proceedings under section 145(1) Cr. P. C. on 16-11-64 on the basis of a report filed be the Police in F. I. R. 961 of 1964 in the month of August, 1964. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate called upon the parties to submit written statements of their respective claims as regards the fact of actual possession and required them to put in such documents or to adduce, by putting in affidavits, the evidence of such persons as they relied upon in support of their respective claims under section 145 (1) Cr. P. C. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate attached the land in question.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate posted the case to 22-12-64 for appearance for the parties. On that date, both the parties filed their written statements. The petitioner herein filed the affidavits of 6 witnesses and also Exts. D/1 to D/10. The respondents filed Exts. A/1 to A/4 and the affidavits of 4 witnesses. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate heard arguments on 27-1-65 and posted the case to 1-2-65 for orders. But, in the meanwhile on 29-1-65, the 5th respondent herein filed a petition to admit his affidavit dated 27-1-65 in proof of his allegations. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 5-2-65 allowing the petition. Subsequently, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the impugned final order under section 145 (6) Cr. P. C. on 9-3-65.
5. Aggrieved with the above order, the petitioners moved the Additional Sessions Court, Manipur, under Section 435 Cr. P. C. to make a reference to this Court to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the contentions of the counsel for the petitioners and made a reference to this Court under Section 438, Cr. P. C. to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
6. The counsel for the petitioners urged mainly two grounds in support of his contention that interference by this Court under Section 115 C. P. C. is called for and that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is liable to be set aside. His first contention is that under Section 145(4) Cr. P. C. the Sub-Divisional Magistrate should have considered only the affidavits which wer
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
