This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 2.2.1982 of the Sessions Judge Manipur in his Criminal Revision Case No. 59 of 1981 wherein he pointed out that the learned S.D.M. did not record the statements of the witnesses and consequently did not give opportunity for cross-examination of those witnesses and therefore the evidence was not legal evidence and yet he did not consider it necessary to remand the case and dismissed the revision petition.

2. In the land dispute Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 1980 a proceeding under section 145 Cr. P.C. was drawn up; parties were directed to submit their written statements documents and affidavits and were summoned to appear before the Court on 16.4.81 and on that day the parties and witnesses were heard and documents examined. The report of the O/C of Jessami Police Station was also considered and the disputed land was declared to be in possession of the first party (opposite party before this Court) untill competent Court otherwise decided. The petitioner (second party) moved the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Case No. 59 of 1981 challenging the impugned order mainly on the ground that the learned S.D.M. did not comply with the mandatory provision of section 145 Cr. P.C. firstly because he did not pass any preliminary order in the proceeding; secondly he proceeded to enquire without the written statements of the parties; and thirdly he proceeded to pass the impugned order without receiving any legal evidence. The learned Sessions lodge correctly analysed the provisions of section 145 Cr. P.C. and rejected the first two submissions holding that the prelimi­nary order was passed on 26.2.1981; and that first party filed his written statement on 13.3.1981 while the second party did not file any written statement but filed a cross-objection on 16.4.1981. On the third submission namely non-receipt of legal evidence the learned Sessions Judge observed:

"In the order dated 16.4.1981 the learned S.D.M. has dismissed the statements of the parties and the evidence of some witnesses. But to my utter surprise I do not find any statement of these witnesses in file. It appears that all what the learned S.D.M. did was to take statements of the witnesses verbally and that he did not record their statements. Since he did not record the statements of the witnesses the parties were not given opportunity for cross-examination of those witnesses and therefore the evidence on the basis of which he gave his finding was not a legal evidence as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Because the evidence as stated in clause (4) of section 145 means a legal evidence. Therefore I do not find any acceptable ground to support the said procedure by the learned S.D.M. Hence third contention of the learned counsel carries sufficient weight."

The learned Sessions Judge observing that the second party in his cross-objection did not deny the contention of the first party that he was in actual physical possession of the disputed land since the death of his forefathers till date and had admitted that the first party was in possession of the disputed land during the relevant period dismissed the petition and consequently the Magistrate's order was allowed to stand.

3. Mr. Th. Priyananda Singh learned counsel for the peti­tioner submits inter alia that the learned Sessions Judge having himself observed that the learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure prescribed by law the impugned judgment before him ought to have been set aside and should not have been upheld. This submission appears to have some force inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge after observing the illegality of the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate himself proceeded to decide the question of possession without those evidence on record. Had the statement of witnesses been recorded and sub­jected to cross-examination if is difficult to s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document