NAND KUMAR SINHA Vs. RAI BAHADUR PASHUPATI GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications in civil revision have been heard together as they raise questions substantially identical, namely whether institution of the two suits, as against some of the defendants is barred by Section 270(1), Government of India Act, in the absence of consent of the Governor of the Province. The section by its terms applies to a suit against any person in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duty as a servant of the Crown. The words used are similar to those in Section 80, Civil P.C.

(2.) The most authoritative decision on Section 270(1), Government of India Act, is that in Hori Ram Singh V/s. Emperor and on Section 80, Civil P.C., in Bhagchand Daagdusa V/s. Secretary of State . The words of the statute, it has been authoritatively said, are to receive their natural meaning. We have then to see whether the facts of each of the cases before us fall within the terms of the statute. Civil Revision No. 137 arises out of Suit No. 215 of 1938 in the Court of the Munsif of Begusarai.

(3.) The facts are that during the pendency of a dacoity case one of the prosecution witnesses by name Sitaram Sahu on 27 November 1935, presented an affidavit in the Court of Rai Bahadur Pashupati, S.D.O., to the effect that the plaintiff had instigated this witness not to identify correctly before the Court some accused persons whom he had identified at a test identification. After the conclusion of the sessions trial, a complaint was presented to the District Magistrate by Rai Bahadur Pashupati Ghosh, S.D.O., Begusarai, against the plaintiff charging him with offence punishable under Section 193 read with Section 116, Indian Penal Code, in relation to the proceedings in the dacoity case. The plaintiff was put on his trial and acquitted. In the trial of the plaintiff Babu Ramprit Pandey, an Inspector of Police, was a witness and so was Babu Bhubaneshwar Prasad, Sub-Inspector.