STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. CHANDI CHARAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us is the State of West Bengal, and the appeal was pressed only on the ground of limitation.

(2.) In order to appreciate how the Question of limitation has arisen in the present case, it is necessary to state the following facts about which there is practically no controversy in this Court. Respondent Chandicharan Das of this appeal was a dealer in rice, and he had purchased 230 maunds of rice at Mathurapur, and while this quantity of rice was in the course of transport, it was seized by one Amar Choudhury who was Inspector of Civil Supplies under the Government of Bengal on 29th March, 1946, on the ostensible plea that the rice was being smuggled out of the cordoned area. The said quantity of rice was thereafter deposited with Messrs. Shaw Wallace and Ispahani Co. which was a firm and the chief procurement agent of the Province of Bengal, as it then was. The respondent thereafter brought a criminal case against the said Amar Choudhury on the allegation that he had illegally seized the rice of the plaintiff respondent because of the latter's refusal to pay some illegal gratification to him. On the footing of that allegation Amar Choudhury was prosecuted for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer at Diamond Harbour. This case resulted in the acquittal of Amar Choudhury on 28-2-1948. During the pendency of the criminal case, the respondent made several attempts before the Sub-divisional Officer of Diamond Harbour for getting back the rice which was seized from him, but to no purpose. Under the orders of the said officer the rice was kept in deposit in the godown of Shaw Wallace & Co. at Mathurapur. No action was taken against the respondent at any time for his alleged attempt to smuggle the rice out of the cordoned, area. After the final disposal of the criminal case against Amar Choudhury, the plaintiff respondent again moved the Sub-divisional Officer of Diamond Harbour for getting back the rice or its equivalent price, but that officer passed an order on 5th December, 1949, refusing either to deliver back the rice or to pay its price to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2932/8as. as being the price of the rice.

(3.) Various defences were taken on behalf of the State contesting the claim of the plaintiff. In this appeal we are not concerned with any of those defences, except the defence of limitation. We may just mention here that the suit of the plaintiff respondent was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had utilised the rice in question in any way, and was thereby benefited. An appeal was preferred by the plaintiff from the decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court and the appeal succeeded. The Lower Appellate Court which was the final Court of facts has found that at all material times the quantity of rice which was seized by Amar Choudhury was kept in the godown of the firm of Shaw Wallace and Company which was the chief procurement agent of the Government of Bengal, as it then was. The Lower Appellate Court has further found that this rice was not returned to the plaintiff respondent in spite of his repeated prayers and it was utilised for the benefit of the State of West Bengal. In this view of the matter, the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The question of limitation does not appear to have been raised or canvassed before the Lower Appellate Court.