DWARKA PRASAD, J.—This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. raises a short but interesting question about the interpretation of section 484 (2) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter called "the new Code").

2. The facts, which have given rise to the aforesaid question, may be briefly stated, are that different plots of agricultural lands, measuring 112bighas 7 biswas, were allotted by the Custodian Department to Khanumal alias Khiyamal, Mag-an Mal, Chimanlal and Deepu Mal in the year 1961. In order to manage the said 112 bighas and 7 biswas land, all the aforesaid allottees appointed one Balchand Sindhi as their power of Attorney Holder. Some time later, the Mukhtiar-Aam, Balchand Sindhi, sold the said 112 bighas and 7 biswas land by means of a registered sale deed dated 29-9-1969 to Kapoor Singh, Karnailsingh and Nihal Singh, who will hereinafter be described as "party No. 2". But Nahar Singh and Pola Singh, who will hereinafter be described as "party No 1," contested the claim of the alleged purchasers on the ground that they were in cultivatory possession of the entire land measuring 112 bighas and 7 biswas since the year 1961 on behalf of the allottees thereof. According to party No. 1, the possession of the disputed land was never transferred by Balchand Sindhi to party No.2. Proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. were taken. Thereafter, party No. 2 filed a complaint under section 447 and 307 I.P.C. against party No. 1 but in those proceedings members of party No. 1 were acquitted.

3. Some time later the Station House Officer of Police Station Rawatsar filed a report before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the old Code) on April 1, 1970, alleging that there was a dispute about possession of agricultural land in question between party No 1 and party No. 2 and there was likelihood of breach of peace, as both the parties were asserting their alleged claim of possession of the disputed fields. On that very day, in order of attachment was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsildar, Nohar was appointed as the Receiver. A preliminary order was also drawn under section 145 Cr.P.C. on April 1, 1970 itself by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar, calling upon both the parties to file their written-statements and affidavits along with documents etc. in support of their respective claims. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar by his order dated August 25, 1971 declared that party No. 1 was in possession over the agricultural lands in dispute on the date of the preliminary order Party No. 2 thereupon preferred a revision petition before the District Magistrate, Sriganganagar, which was allowed by the order dated January 17, 1973 and a reference was made by him to this Court. The reference was accepted by this Court on January 4, 1974 and the revision petition was allowed and the case was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nohar with the direction that both the parties should be asked to file fresh affidavits, as the affidavits filed earlier were inadmissible, on account of the fact that they did not clearly state as to which part of those affidavits was true to the knowledge of the deponents and which part thereof was true to their belief.

4. Thus, the proceedings were remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who allowed both the parties to file fresh affidavits and thereafter the matter. This time, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated February 12, 1975 declared party No. 2 to be in possession of the disputed land on the date of the preliminary order. A revision petition was again preferred, this time, by party No. 1 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar again allowed the revision petition by his order dated February 6, 1978. It was again held that the affidavits filed by the parties were not properly verified, as the affidavits did not clearly state as to which part thereof was true to the know

Click Here to Read the rest of this document