NANDLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff Nandlal filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, in forma pauperis against (1) THE State of Rajasthan, (2) Shri Jainarain Vyas, its Ex-Chief Minister, and its two other Ex-Ministers (3) Shri Tikaram Paliwal and (4) Shri Ram Karan Joshi, for the recovery of Rs. 1, 25, 000/-, as genaral damages and Rs. 500/-, as special damages for malicious prosecution.

(2.) THE material facts of the plaintiffs case are that he was appointed as an Adviser to the former State of Rajasthan, with its capital at Udaipur, in August, 1948, on an honorarium of Rs. 1200/- p. m. , and an allowance of Rs. 30/-, per diem. THE plaintiff prepared several schemes for the development of agriculture, forest, industries, secondary education etc. His plan for the advancement of agriculture was approved by the then Government and steps were taken for its implementation. As his varied activities made him popular, some high officers of the State having become jealous wanted to get rid of him. Accordingly when he had gone on leave to Khamgaon (Bombay) on October 22, 1948, the Chief Secretary of the former State of Rajasthan intimated to him through a telegram on November 1, 1948, that his services were terminated. Despite such an intimation, he joined his duties on November 6, 1948 On November 17, 1948, Shri Sobhagmal Talesra, Acting Director of Agriculture, former State of Rajasthan, tried to assume charge of his, office, but on to the intervention of the States Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi, and the then Regional Commissioner, Mount Abu, attempts on the part of the Government officers to drive him out of the office were foiled. A notice was served on him by the Accountant General on December 30, 1948, alleging that he had withdrawn and utilised Government money to the tune of Rs. 4000/-, but he had failed to give account of Rs. 1283/4/3-, and that amounted to criminal offence on his part. THE plaintiff denied the charge, THEn the Chief Secretary sent an intimation to the Inspector General of Police on, January 24, 1949, stating that a sum of Rs 4000/-, remained outstanding as an advance against him and that as he failed to render accounts of a large portion of that amount, it was suspected that criminal breach of trust was committed. THE Chief Secretary, therefore, asked the Inspector General of Police, to launch legal proceedings against him. In March 1959, the State of former Rajasthan was merged into the greater Rajasthan, with its capital at Jaipur. THE plaintiff also shifted his office to Jaipur. On November 17, 1949, Shri Vishnudutt Sharma, Secretary Agriculture Department, gave him a notice that he had received Rs 500/- on September 6, 1948, in the capacity of Adviser, Agriculture Department, for travelling expenses, but no accounts thereof for over a year had been submitted nor had the money been refunded. That act of the plaintiff, therefore, amounted to criminal offence under sec. 409, I. P. G. THE plaintiff further alleged that he sent replies to the notices through the States Ministry, Government of India. On June 13, 1953, the plaintiff again received a letter from the Director of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Jaipur, that some amounts remained outstanding against him. THE plaintiff met the Director in his office at Jaipur on June 15, and 22, 1953. A written reply had been given to him that nothing was due from him and that if the papers of 1948 were made available to him, he could clarify the position. He on the other hand had overspent about Rs. 10,000/-, from his own pocket on behalf of the Govt. He explained the whole position to the defendants but none of them paid heed to him. On the contrary they were bent upon impairing his reputation. THE police wrongly got the plaintiff declared absconding. He was arrested suddenly on July 10, 1953, at Bassi, District Jaipur. THEre he was taken around the Bazzars and the streets for about 5 hours with, a view to lower down his status in the eyes of the general public, THEreafter he was put in the police lockup, where he was inhumanly,treated. THEre he also fell ill and was removed to the S. M. S. Hospital, Jaipur. THE Doctor advised at least 4 days' complete rest to him. THE police paid scant attention to it and he was taken to Udaipur and produced before the court of the City Magistrate. He was,sent to the judicial lock-up and on November 5, 1953, he was released cm bail. He was again arrested, but on an habeaus corpus petition filed by him in the High Court, he was ordered to be released. He was later prosecuted under sec. 409, I. P. C. , in the court of the City Magistrate, Udaipur, on the first information report No. 199, -dated April 13, 1949. He was discharged by the City Magistrate on October 21, 1954, as the charge levelled against him was malafide and baseless. THE Government then filed a revision-petition against the order of discharge in the court of the District Magistrate, Udaipur. That application was rejected by the said court on March 29, 1955. THE plaintiff claimed to be a fellow of the Banaras Hindu University. He further asserted that he had worked as Director, Agriculture Department, Central Provinces. He also claimed to be a research scholar in plant physiology and ecology. His further allegation was that before his arrest and detention in jail he was conducting research in synthesis of the respiratory water in the plant cells and submitted papers to the Indian Science Congress, held in January, 1953. Owing to his arrest and prosecution he could not complete his work, otherwise he expected to have won the Nobel Prize. THE plaintiff's case is that there was no reasonable and probable cause for his prosecution by the Defendants. His prosecution was motivated by malice on account of which he suffered great mental agony and loss -of reputation. He gave a notice to the defendants under sec. 80, Civil Procedure Code. THEreafter he filed the present suit claiming Rs. 1,25,000/- on account of general damages and Rs. 500/-, as special damage. THE plaintiff also claimed future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the decretal amount.

(3.) NEXT point urged by the appellant is that there was no material before defendant No. 1, on the basis of which he could have been prosecuted and, therefore, it should be inferred that his prosecution was based on indirect or improper motive. It is on the record that the services of the plaintiff were terminated through defendant No. l's telegram, dated November 1, 1948. Nonetheless he refused to hand over charge upto November 16, 1948. Shri Sobhagmal Talesara, Acting Director of Agriculture, had received from the Agriculture Secretary a letter Ex. A. 18, dated November 17, 1948, directing him to assume charge from the plaintiff. Shri Talesara addressed to the plaintiff a letter dated November 19, 1948 (Ex. A26), requesting him to hand over charge, but he did not do so. The Agriculture Secretary sent another message to Shri Talesara on November 18. 1948 (Ex. A. 27), asking him to takeover charge of the Adviser's Office by breaking open its lock. In compliance with that order, Shri Talesara got the office lock broken through police in the presence of respectable persons. He took over possession of cash amounting to Rs. 221/8/6, along with other articles under memo Ex. A. 28.