OSCAR H BROWN Vs. NATHMAL HIRACHAND AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a judgment and order of Mr. Justice Bhagwati by which he directed that a writ of certiorari should issue against the appellant, Mr. Oscar Brown, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay.

(2.) THE petitioners have a shop in the riot area, and on February 22, 1946, their shop which is on the ground floor of a building was looted. THEy gave notice of the loss to the insurance company and also made their claim for compensation under Section 45 of the Bombay City Police Act, 1902, before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate. THEir claim was adjudicated upon by him and he dismissed their claim. THE petitioners came before Mr. Justice Bhgawati for a writ of certiorari on the ground that in investigating their claim the learned Chief Presisidency Magistrate had violated the principles of natural justice. What happened before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was this. THE question which he had to determine was whether the shop of the petitioners contained the various articles which the petitioners contended had been looted and damaged by the rioters. THE suggestion that was made was that they had removed most of the articles to an upper storey and that no damage whatever was caused to them by the rioters and they were not entitled to any compensation. THE landlords who were interested in the compensation that might be awarded to the petitioners, inasmuch as ultimately they might have had to pay a riot tax, relied upon the evidence of one Dalichand and an affidavit was filed before the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in which Dalichand swore that on the very day when the shop was alleged to have been looted he saw Maganlal, an employee of the petitioners' firm, carrying some parcels on the fourth floor of the building. Dalichand asked Maganlal where he was taking them and he informed Dalichand that he was taking all valuable articles to the room of one Parmanand for safety on account of the riot situation. Now this conversation was supposed to have taken place at 6 p. m. and the shop was looted at about 8-80 p. m. that night. Dalichand lives in the same building on the second floor. THE learned Chief Presidency Magistrate allowed the petitioners' advocate to cross-examine Dalichand on the allegations made by him in his affidavit. At a certain stage when. Dalichand was being cross-examined, apparently the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate took the view that the cross-examination was being lengthened out unnecessarily and various irrelevant matters were being introduced. He therefore asked the advocate to close the petitioners' case within two minutes. THE petitioners' advocate protested against this and also requested the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate to allow him more time as he wanted to call both Maganlal and Parmanand to controvert the statements made by Dalichand in his affidavit. THE learned Chief Presidency Magistrate refused to give the petitioners any more time and summarily disposed of the petitioners' claim by dismissing it, Mr. Justice Bhagwati took the view that the procedure followed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was contrary to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) I agree. .