NARMADA SHANKAR Vs. DAN PAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was issued to six police officials and to Ali Hasan to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for perjury and/or fabricating or using false evidence in a suit for malicious prosecution which was filed by one Narmada Shankar against certain police officials. In response to this notice six of them have appeared while the seventh has not yet been served. The police officials were all posted at Karakat police station, district Jaunpur when the incident occurred. The respondents who have appeared before me are Danpal Singh head constable, Bindeshwari, writer constable, Bhola, Ram Chandra Ahir and Nizamul Haq, constables and Ali Hasan, a witness for the police. The seventh respondent Khalil Ahmad, who was the station officer in charge of Kerakat police station at the time, remained unserved and his case cannot be decided by this order.

(2.) The facts very briefly are these Narmada Shankar was a Government official who was posted as postmaster of Kerakat in May, 1952. In his suit for malicious prosecution against Danpal Singh, Bindeshwari. Bhola Ahir and Ram Chandra Shir he alleged that a complaint of a very vague nature was filed against him by one Sahdev Singh who alleged that five persons (other than the plaintiff) had assaulted him and committed an offence under Sections 323 and 147, Indian Penal Code and stated vaguely that these five committed the assault at the instigation of the plaintiff whom he described as belonging to the group of the assaulters. This report was filed on 1.5.1952 but the police took no action at it. More than a month later, on 9th June, the Station Officer of Kerakat (the respondent Khalil Ahmad who has not appeared today) called him to the police station and asked him to furnish security for his presence if and when required. The plaintiff alleged in response to this demand he went to the police station accompanied by a Mukhtar who was to stand surety but on arrival he was maltreated by the police officials, the constable Bhola Ahir rudely dragged him in the office and used filthy language against him, the head constable Danpal Singh and the writer constable Bindheshwari behaved arrogantly, refused to accept the surety, and directed the constables Bhola and Ram Chandra Ahir to lock him up. The plaintiff alleged that these constables put him in the lock-up, giving him two first blows in the process, but subsequently respect able persons of the locality arrived and he was released after furnishing sureties. Narmada Shankar complained that his arrest was illegal and charged the defendants with conspiracy to disgrace and harass him and claimed a sum of Rs. 500 as damages for wrongful imprison merit, loss of reputation and prestige, bodily injury and mental agony. All the defendants resisted the suit and denied all liabilities. They admitted the plaintiff's arrest and detention in the lock-up but gave their own version of the circumstances under which he was arrested. They alleged that the plaintiff was on bad terms with one Sehdeva Singh who filed a complaint that he had been assaulted by five persons at the instigation of the plaintiff who was standing at some distance when the assault took place. The defendants admitted that the complaint was not investigated for some time but Sehdev Singh approached the Superintendent of Police who directed an investigation. During the resulting investigation the defendants alleged that several persons implicated the plaintiff. Thereupon "the Station Officer had no option but to order the arrest of the plaintiff", but as the plaintiff was known to him the Station Officer did not arrest him straightaway but summoned him to the police station and asked him to furnish security which the plaintiff promised to do by the evening. But he did not furnish security on that day nor during the next two days in spite of a reminder sent by the station officer. Thereupon the station officer deputed a constable by the name of Nizamul Haq (one of the respondents before him) to arrest him. Nizamul Haq arrested the plaintiff on the 9th evening near the bus stand in the town and brought him to the police station. Even then the plaintiff offered no surety but felt that his vanity was wounded and abused the constable who took him to the thana. At that time, according to the defendants, the station officer was away on duty, the second officer on leave, and the head constable had gone to town on private business, and only the writer constable and the three other constables were present. As no surety was offered and the constables had no power to release him on bail, the plaintiff had to be locked-up, but later when the sureties turned up and the head constable returned to the thana the plaintiff was released forthwith. The defendants denied having assaulted or abused or maltreated the plaintiff in any way. They contended that the plaintiff's arrest was according to law and made in good faith.

(3.) Thus there was a conflict of versions with regard to the circumstances and a manner of arrest and the treatment of the plaintiff on arrival at the police station. The defendant produced in evidence the station officer (not a party in the suit) who deposed that he issued an order under Section 56, Criminal Procedure Code for the arrest of the plaintiff and handed it over to all the four constables including Nizamul Haq, charging them with the duty of executing it by arresting the plaintiff. He was not present at the time when the incident took place at the police station an the evening of 9th June. The respondent Nizamul Haq deposed that lie arrested the plaintiff at the bus station and took him to the police station. The respondent Dan Pal Singh deposed that he was not present when the plaintiff was brought to the police station as he had gone to the city for the purpose of taking fight refreshments "khurdnosh" - (the time was 4 P.M. on the 9th of June) The other two defendants admitted that they put the plaintiff in a lock up but denied that they assaulted him. During the trial of the suit the defendants produced what they claimed to he a certified copy of the order of arrest issued under Sec. 56, Criminal Procedure Code and subsequently the order in original itself.