ANOWAR HUSSAIN Vs. AJOY KUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of the same action for recovery of damages for false imprisonment. First Appeal No. 14 of 1954 has been presented by Anowar Hussain, the defendant No. 3 in the action, while the other appeal, First Appeal No. 18 of 1954 is by the plaintiff, Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee.

(2.) ON the night of 17th March, 1950, at about 10 -30 p. m., the plaintiff Ajoy Kumar was arrested at his house at Barpeta by the Circle Inspector of Police, Bhupati Ranjan Chakravarty (defendant No. 4). The arrest was made on the authority of a chit (Ext. A) prepared and signed by Anowar Hussain, the then Sub -divisional Magistrate of Barpeta, and handed over by the former earlier at his bungalow at about 10 p. m., to the Circle Inspector for execution. After his arrest, the plaintiff was taken in custody to the thana lock -up, where he was confined for the night. On the following morning he was produced before the Sub -divisional Magistrate who remanded him to custody. An attempt was made before that officer to have him released on bail that clay, but the lawyers concerned were directed to approach the Deputy Commissioner of Kamarup, A. C. Bhattacharjee (defendant No. 2), who was then camping at Barpeta. The Deputy Commissioner in his turn referred the bail petition for disposal to the Sub -divisional Magistrate and eventually, the plaintiff was released on' bail on 20 -3 -1950. Sri J. 'Barua (P. W. 1), the Magistrate who enlarged the plaintiff on bail, recorded the following order on that date:

(3.) THE plaintiff further stated that tor some time past he had been suffering from heart trouble and at the time of arrest, he had barely recovered from the after -effects of a recent attack of that ailment. In that shattered state of health his arrest and detention led to violent and serious reactions, so much so that he fainted in the Hajat and remained unconscious for a long time and the medical officer, who examined him on the morning of 18 -3 -1950, advised his immediate removal to a hospital for treatment. Despite all this, the plaintiff was not released until 20 -3 -1950. He accordingly claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ -making all the defendants jointly and severally liable.