J D BOYWALLA Vs. SORAB RUSTOMJI ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision made by one J.D. Boy-walla, who asks us to quash a complaint lodged against him under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is a good illustration of the way in which the time of the criminal Courts and of the police in Bombay is wasted by the foolish behaviour of some of its citizens.

(2.) THE facts are that Mr. Boywalla had got a motor car, as I understand, for the first time in his life, and he took the motor car to a garage, which belonged to the opponent, either alone or with partners, in order to have it painted and repaired. His case is that when he went to get his car back from the garage, the opponent told him that the battery had not been properly charged, although Mr. Boywalla says that he had recently had it charged. However, the opponent said that the battery required to be recharged, and that it had been recharged by him, for which a sum of Rs. 3 was payable, and Mr. Boywalla paid the three rupees. But then he found that his car would not start. THE opponent in the meantime had gone out and was not available. So, after waiting for about an hour, Mr. Boywalla jumped to the conclusion that he had been cheated by the opponent in respect of the three rupees. He assumed that because the car would not start, the battery had not been charged as the opponent alleged, though any practical motorist knows that there are many other reasons which may account for a motor refusing to start. So Mr. Boywalla rushed off to the police and lodged a complaint against the opponent of cheating in respect of these three rupees, his case being that he had been induced to part with the money by the opponent's fraudulent and false statement that the battery had been charged. THE police authorities, instead of telling him to go away and not to be silly, started investigation and arrested the opponent and released him on bail, and subsequently applied to the learned Magistrate of the Girgaon Police Court to have the bail enlarged, and an order to that effect was made. THE police then investigated further into the matter, and eventually on Miay 29 the Police Sub-Inspector made a report to the learned Magistrate saying: I beg to place before Your Worship the marginally noted accused person who was arrested by the Police on 8-5-40 at about 2-0 P.M. u/s 420 of I.P. Code. He was released on bail the same day and his bail period was extended till to-day. As however no offence has been disclosed against him it is requested that he be discharged and his bail bond cancelled. On that the learned Magistrate passed an order: Accused discharged. Bail bond cancelled. Deposit to be returned.

(3.) THE question, however, is whether the making of this alleged false charge was committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding in Court. It is contended on behalf of the opponent that the order made by the learned Magistrate extending bail, and subsequently discharging the accused and cancelling his bail bond, was an administrative order, and not a judicial order, since the Magistrate never considered the merits of the case. I am quite unable to accept that argument. Indeed, it is a novelty to me to hear it suggested that there is any authority which can make an administrative order discharging an arrest-ed person from judicial custody. This man had been arrested, and released on bail, and, in my opinion, the only authority which could release him from custody, or from being on bail, was a Magistrate or Judge acting judicially, and I have no doubt whatever that the learned Magistrate acted, and intended to act, as a Magistrate in a judicial capacity.