MAHALINGA AIYAR Vs. RAJAM AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the District Judge has held that the Magistrate was protected by Act XVIII of 1850 on the ground that acts done by. him were done in the course of a proceeding in which he had jurisdiction, and he adopts the construction of the Act which appears to have been adopted by the Allahabad High Court in Teyen V/s. Ramlal, 1890 I.L.R. 12 A. 115, If it were necessary to deal with this case on the footing on which the District Judge dealt with it, we should have to consider carefully whether we were prepared to place the same construction on the word "jurisdictron" as used in this enactment (Act XVIII of 1850) as that adopted by the Allahabad High Court. As at present advised we should he disposed to hold that the act of issuing the warrant was not an act within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate within the meaning of that word as used in Act XVIII of 1550. Dealing with the case on the assumption that the order for. the issue of the warrant and so much of the order as awarded a term of imprisonment in default of payment before any warrant of distress had been issued were made without jurisdiction, we entertain no doubt that the Magistrate in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do the acts complained of. IN,his evidence the Magistrate explains in detail the grounds on which he believed hehad jurisdiction. Further, we have the fact that District Judge took the same view of the legal powers of the Magistrate as the Magistrate himself did and was of opinion that both the acts complained of were, acts done within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. IN this state of things and in the absence of any evidence whatever to show that the Magistrate was actuated by any indirect or sinister motive, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that he in good faith believed himself to have jurisdiction to do the acts complained of. Applying the test, suggested by this Court in Ragunada Rao V/s. Nathamuni Thathamayyangar 1890 I.L.R. 12 A. 115 to the facts of the present case, we are clearly of opinion that, assuming the acts to have been done without jurisdiction the Magistrate bona fide believed that he had jurisdiction and that consequently he is protected by Act XVIII of 1850. We think the second appeal should be dismissed with costs.