The seizure of property by the Police and the Magistrate's order entrusting the seized property to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were both illegal and without jurisdiction.

ORDER :- In this revision petition filed by R. K. Dolansana and five others under Sec. 439 read with section 561-Appellant of the Criminal Procedure Code, the validity of the orders dated 8-1-1970 and 22-8-1970 respectively passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Thoubal, and by the Additional Sessions Judge, Manipur, is assailed.

2. For proper appreciation of the legal points involved in the revision petition the facts leading up to it may be briefly set out. Respondents nos. 1 and 2, Narjitsana Singh and Manisana Singh, moved an application on 1-12-1969 before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Thoubal, for drawing up a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P. C. against the present petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 as disputes had arisen between the two parties over the crops harvested from certain lands belonging to deity Gopinath. The Magistrate forwarded that application to the Officer in Charge of the Police Station, Thoubal, for enquiry and report. The Police submitted their report to the Magistrate on 2-12-1969 stating that the land in dispute belongs to deity Gopinath, that there had been seven Shebaits successively of that deity all of whom had died one after the other, that Th. Ningthemjab Singh and Th. Yaima Singh, the petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 herein, were the Loupanabas (Managers) of the paddy land owned by the deity, that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the descendants of deceased Shebaits Nos. 1 to 6 while petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 are the sons and brothers of the last Shebait Bhubonsana Singh, that petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 had been working as Loupanabas respecting the land in dispute for the last 20 years, and that there was an immediate apprehension of the breach of the peace between the petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 on one hand and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the other respecting the produce of land lying with petitioners nos. 5 and 6.

It appears that police had seized 340 pots of paddy from petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 during the course of enquiry and had entrusted the same to them on securing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. On the basis of the Police report, the Magistrate ordered on 4-12-1969 drawing up of the proceedings against both the parties under Section 107 Cr. P.C. and simultaneously directed registration of a separate proceeding under Section 523 Cr. P. C. respecting the paddy seized by the Police. The Magistrate subsequently ordered the Police to produce the seized paddy before him on 3-1-1970 and on the failure of the Police to comply with that direction he issued a search warrant on 5-1-1970 with the apparent object of seizing the paddy from the possession of the two Loupanabas, the present petitioners Nos. 5 and 6. The Police thereupon searched the premises of the Loupanabas and seized 250 pots of paddy which they produced before the Court.

The present respondents Nos. 3 and 4, Komlasana Devi and Ombisana Devi, presented an application to the Magistrate, probably on 5-1-1970, praying that the seized paddy be entrusted to them until disposal of the case under Sec. 107 Cr. P. C. It was on 8-1-1970 that the Magistrate passed an order entrusting the paddy to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 against a bond of Rs. 3,000/-. Aggrieved by that order the present six petitioners went in revision to the Court of the Sessions Judge to challenge its legality. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was transferred for disposal, rejected the revision on holding that the paddy had been entrusted to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for custody only temporarily for the duration of the case under Section 107 Cr. P. C. and that he did not feel inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in the matter of choice of the custodian. Dissatisfied with that order the six petitioners have come up in revision to this Court.

3. Two questions of law that were debated in this Court are, (i) whether the Police had any authority for seizing the paddy from the possession of the petitioners Nos. 5 and 6, and (ii) whether the Ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document