BEHARI LAL GOKLANEY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has arisen out of the decision of the Senior Subordinate Judge Ferozepore, on certain preliminary points arising out of a suit instituted by the petitioner Behari Lal Goklaney for the recovery of Rs. 5250/- as damages for malicious prosecution against four defendants.

(2.) The plaintiff claims to be a prominent Advocate of Fazilka, but in fact his primary profession appears to be journalism since he also describes himself as the President of the Ferozeporo District Journalists Association, and he instituted the suit against the State of the Punjab, two Police Officers, S. S. Sardar Ajaib Singh, Superintendent of Police at Delhi but formerly Deputy Superintendent of Police at Fazilka, Inspector Rizaq Ram of Ferozepore, formerly Sub-Inspector at Fazilka, and a Magistrate Pandit Dwarka Nath Misra, now Additional Districts Magistrate at Amritsar and formerly Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Fazilka, with regard to certain events which are alleged to have taken place at Fazilka between the later part of 1947 and the beginning of 1949. A number of preliminary objections were raised by various defendants regarding limitation, the validity of the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C., whether the suit was barred by Section 43, East Pun-jab Public Safety Act, whether any cause of action was revealed in the plaint against defendant 1, i.e., the state, and whether the suit could proceed against defendant 4, i.e., the Magistrate, in view of the provisions of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act of 1850. All these preliminary issues have been dealt with by one order of the lower Court and on most points it decided in the plaintiffs favour, but on two it decided against him, namely that no cause of action was disclosed against the State, and that the Magistrate was protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act. The names of these two defendants have been struck oil the plaint in pursuance of these findings. The plaintiff has come to this Court in revision against these two findings. His learned counsel, however, has conceded that he could not press the matter with regard to the finding that no cause of action was shown against the State Government and has confined his arguments to the case against the former Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandit Dwarka Nath Misra.

(3.) The allegations in the plaint are very lengthy and may be summarized as follows. In consequence of the activities of the plaintiff in exposing the activities of various people including officials in the matter of the looting of Muslim property he aroused the jealousy and enmity of the local Police at Fazilka and particularly the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ajaib Singh, with the result that the Police began proceedings against him in a false case that he was in possession of some looted Muslim furniture, but the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate Dewan Hukam Chand passed an order allowing the plaintiff bail in a nominal sum on his own personal bond in November 1947. Various allegations are made against the conduct of the Police Officers concerned, but it was only in July 1948 that Pandit Dwarka Nath Misra appeared on the scene, having by then taken the place of the previous Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had retired from service. It seems that the plaintiff's answer to the criminal charge against him was that he had bought the furniture from Kartarpur in June 1947 and he was relying on an alleged railway receipt. Apparently this receipt had been sent by the Police to some expert who had reported that it was a forgery and the plaintiff was actually arrested for the first time late on the evening of 24-7- 1948, which happened to be a Saturday, and he was only released on bail again by an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 29-7-1948. The plaintiff alleges that the date of his arrest was carefully chosen, and that he was unnecessarily kept in detention until the defendant Magistrate ordered his release, as the result of a conspiracy between the Magistrate and the Police and another grievance is that the Magistrate had cancelled the order by which the alleged looted furniture was allowed to remain in custody of the plaintiff during the pendency of the investigation and the Police were allowed to take possession of the furniture, the passing of this order also being alleged to be the result of malice and conspiracy with the police Officer. It does not seem that the plaintiff was ever actually brought to trial and the case was cancelled in February 1949, but even this is made into a grievance by the plaintiff.