RADHAKRISHNA DAS AND ANR Vs. HARI NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions may be conveniently dealt with together, but before dealing with their merit I wish to refer to two preliminary questions of some importance which arise in Criminal Revision No. 7 of 1939 Gaji Das v. Hari Naik.

(2.) These questions are (1) whether the application presented by the petitioner Gaji Das in this Court has been properly verified as required by Rule 3, chap. III of the Rules of the Patna High Court and (2) whether a court-fee of Rs. 2 is chargeable when the verification is made by the petitioner himself and not by a person other than the petitioner. Gaji Das has not filed any affidavit in support of the statements made in his petition nor did he appear before the Commissioner for Oaths at Cuttack to verify them by his solemn affirmation. He has merely signed a declaration at the end of the petition which runs as follows:

(3.) Mr. Subba Rao, who appears on behalf of Gaji Das, asks us to hold that such a verification is in order and has been made in compliance with Rule 3 of Chap. III. His contention is that when a petition is verified by the petitioner himself, all that he is required to do is to verify it in the manner in which pleadings are verified in a civil suit and it is not necessary for him to verify it in the presence of a Commissioner for Oaths or any other officer. In my opinion, this contention is not borne out either by Rule 3 or any of the other rules of Chap. III. Rule 3 runs as follows: