(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Vellore imposing a fine and directing the attachment of the property of a witness in a judicial proceeding. As, in my opinion, there has been a serious miscarriage of Justine, I shall shortly state the fasts before dealing with the question of law.
(2.) The petitioner was summoned as a witness in Original Suit No. 42 of 1918 on the file of the Subordinate Judge. The summons was dated the 20th February 1919, and it direst-ed him to appear with the account relating to the sum of Rs. 4,600 credited to the name of Manickammal and the account relating to petty transactions adulated by her in his many accounts. He was asked to appear on the 25th of February. He did appear on that date and deposed as follows: of have accounts for money dealings. I was summoned by the defendant to produce my accounts. They related to five years ago. As my accountant is ill and they are lying in a lumber room, I could not produce them. If I find the accounts, I will produce them but I am not certain I will get them." That is all that happened on the 25th. Then on the 27th an application was made to the Subordinate Judge by the defendant for a warrant to issue against the witness, "with a view to secure the accounts in his possession and have the same admitted in evidence." In the affidavit accompanying the application it was stated in paragraph 3 that, when be was examined, " he said be was served with the summon, that the Kanakupil Lal put the account somewhere among the bundle of disposed of records and that he did not bring the same as he was ill and thus pleaded vain excused" It may be noticed that this statement in the affidavit is not an accurate representation of what the witness deposed, Apparently the Subordinate Judge did not scrutinize the affidavit, but directed the warrant to issue on the 27th February in these terms: Whereas so and so has been duly served with a witness summons but has failed to attend the Court, you are hereby ordered to arrest the said witness wherever, he may be found and bring him before this Court. Hearing date 1st March 1919," and then in the remarks column it was stated, you are to appear with the Parade accounts in your many relating to Maniokammal and Bala-krisbna Redid from July 1914 up to date and give evidence." This is the first time that we hear of the fixing of the dates for the account and of the connection of Balakrishna Reddi with the accounts. From the affidavits filed, it would appear that, after the 27th February, the witness was away from Vellore. On the first of March, an application will made for the issue of a proclamation. This application was supported by an affidavit which contains many inaugurate statements. In paragraph 2 the affidavit states: "He received the summons, but tame as a witness on the side of the plaintiff, etc and deposed that the account were plated among the bundle of disposed of papers and that it was not possible to search for and produce the same."
(3.) In paragraph 3, it is stated: It appears that when the process server went with the warrant, a false endorsement was made on the warrant and return was made thereof." The amin was not examined. No witness was examined about the alleged false endorsement and no attempt was made to support this affidavit by any further affidavit. Still the Subordinate Judge apparently was satisfied with the truth of the allegations in the affidavit and directed the proclamation to issue, returnable on the 4th March, On that date, the petitioner as well as his gummite appeared and stated that the accounts were not forthcoming vide paragraph 5 of his affidavit of the 7th March and also the affidavit of his Kanakupil Lal of the same date The fast that he appeared on the 4th and made the statement is not dispute.