9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (8) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ram Singh's son Harbans Singh, Harbans Singh was alleged to have sold this land to party No. 2 Ranjitsingh, but in spite of the sale Pritamsingh Party No. 1 continued to be in possession thereof. Pritam Singh was the brother of Harbansingh's wife Jasbinder Kaur. Smt. Jasbinder Kaur, after the death of her husband started living with her brother Pritamsingh, No. 1. Harbans Singh had three children two daughters and one posthumous son born two months after Harbans Singh's death. On the day the application was made the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order and attached the land. Pritamsingh filed his statement claiming possession of the land in dispute. Both the parties filed a number of affidavits. Ranjitsingh filed 25 affidavits and Pritam Singh filed 34 affidavits. Pritamsingh also filed (1) the sale deed in his favour executed by late Harbanssingh: (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 DW 1 Sohanlal and DW 2 Anandsingh, the Station House Officer. On 12-5-1969, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate declared Ranjits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d learned counsel for the parties. Now, the object of proceedings under Section 145 Crl. Procedure Code is to prevent a breach of peace, if in a dispute relating to land there is likelihood of such breach of peace. It is true, the learned Magistrate has to take effective steps to prevent a breach of peace and for that he is to determine the question regarding the actual possession of the land on the date of the preliminary inquiry or within next two months preceding it, by a summary inquiry. The amendment made in Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code in the year 1956 by enabling the magistrates to decide the question of possession by affidavits instead of recording evidence of witnesses in every case was with a view to resolving such disputes as speedily as possible and then leaving the parties concerned to have their rights determined from a competent court, if necessary. In such proceedings the affidavits form the bulk of the evidence and, therefore, such affidavits have to be sworn properly before a competent authority. Form of an affidavit has not been prescribed by Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code, but the term 'affidavit' though not defined in any statute has acquire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd some guidance in the matter. 10. In Hemdan v. State of Rajasthan 1965 Raj LW 222 = (AIR 1966 Raj 5) Bhargava, J. came across certain affidavits in the case before him which were not found to be verified by a competent Magistrate. The affidavits which were not verified before a competent magistrate or authority were as good as no affidavits. In such a case Bhargava J. remanded the case to the trial court to afford an opportunity to the party concerned to have the affidavits properly verified. In that case it also appeared that in the first court no objection was raised regarding the authority by which the affidavit was verified. Learned Judge emphasised that it was the duty of the Sub Divnl. Magistrate before whom the proceedings were pending to decide the dispute and to receive evidence in the proceedings. 11. It thus appears that while Mehta J. has emphasised the speedy disposal of the proceedings he did not think that the lacuna regarding the affidavits be allowed to be made good; Bhargava J. on the other hand, has emphasised the duty of the learned magistrate to resolve the dispute between the parties and for that to receive evidence, 12. Learned counsel for the op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Jaspalsingh which were said to have been recorded by the Station House Officer. Anarsar. Now these statements are said to have been recorded by the Station House Officer in connection with Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code proceedings. Proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code are not in relation to commission of an offence. A police officer making an inquiry for his own satisfaction and for collecting evidence to be placed before the learned magistrate for action under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code is not collecting evidence regarding the commission of an offence and, therefore, the provisions of Section 161 or 162 Criminal Procedure Code are not attracted in such a case. The statements recorded by a police officer in such a case are like any other previous statements of a person and if they contain any admission of such person, I do not think, there is any bar to the use of such statements for proving the admission of the person concerned. This is, however, not to say as to what should be the value of such an admission made before a police officer. It will be for the court concerned to evaluate such an admission in the light of the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
