KAN SINGH, J.—These are two revision applications directed against the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur on 12-5-69 in proceedings under sec. 145 Criminal Procedure Code. The two revision applications present similar features and can conveniently be disposed of together. I may narrate the facts with reference to S.B. Cr. Revision No. 88 of 1970.

2. Pritamsingh, party No. 1, in the proceedings before the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate made an application under sec. 145 Criminal P. C. to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 17-9-68 in respect of squares Nos. 33 and 35 of Chak No. 1 N, and alleged that the petitioner was in peaceful possession of these squares, but party No. 2, Ranjitsingh had unlawfully taken possession of the land and destroyed the crop raised by party No. 1. This land was entered in the name of Ram Singhs son Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh was alleged to have sold this land to party No. 2 Ranjitsingh, but inspite of the sale Pritamsingh, Party No. 1 continued to be in possession thereof. Pritamsingh was the brother of Harbansinghs wife Jasbinder Kaur. Smt. Jasbinder Kaur, after the death of her husband started living with her brother Pritamsingh, Party No. 1. Harbans Singh had three children two daughters and one posthumous son born two months after Harbans Singhs death. On the day the application was made the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order and attached the land. Pritam Singh filed his statement claiming possession of the land in dispute. Both the parties filed a number of affidavits. Ranjit Singh filed 25 affidavits and Pritam Singh filed 34 affidavits. Pritam Singh also filed (1) the sale deed in his favour executed by late Harbans Singh; (2) Girdawari of Kharif 1968; (3) demand slip for 4 Kilas in the name of Ranjit Singh and for the remaining Kilas of the square in the name of Pritamsingh. He also examined W. 1 Sohanlal and W. 2 Anandsingh, the Station House Officer. On 12.5.69, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate declared Ranjitsingh to be in possession of the land.

3. The second revision application No. 89 of 1970 arises out of S. 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings launched before the learned magistrate by Pritamsingh in respect of squares Nos. 33 and 35. In that case Ranjitsingh denied that the land was in possession of Pritamsingh and both the parties filed their respective affidavits and documents.

4. In the result, the learned Sub Divisional magistrate declared these squares to be in possession of Ranjitsingh. Pritam Singh first went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Ganganagar who transferred the revision application to the Additional Sessions Judge who declined to make a reference. It is in these circumstances that Pritamsingh has come up in revision to this court.

5. In assailing the orders of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate learned counsel for the petitioner Pritam Singh submitted: 11 that the affidavits filed by Ranjitsingh in support of his claim for possession in the two proceedings were not properly sworn by the various deponents and consequently the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was in error in acting on those affidavits. The verification of the affidavits is broadly speaking of two kinds. In about 16 affidavits the deponents have stated like this:

^^eSa gYQu c;ku djrk gwW fd mijksDr gYQukek dh en ua- 1 rk- 5 esjs tkfr bye o ;dhu l lgh o nq:Lr gS fygktk gYQukek isk gSA

In the remaining affidavits the verification stands as follows—

^^eSa gYQu c;ku djrk gwW fd mijksDr gYQukek en ua- 1 rk 6 lp o lgh fy[kok;k gSA dksbZ vxj Qkyrw o xyr ugha fy[kok;k o dksbZ vej fNik;k ugha gSaA fygktk ;g gYQukek isk gSA

6. It was next submitted that the copies of the documents produced on behalf of Ranjitsingh were not duly certified copies, but the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate had himself endorsed the copies as certified. It is not clear whether the copies were from the original record or from other certified copies. Then it was s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document