MADHO PERSHAD Vs. MUNSHI ALI HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for compensation for wrongful confinement. It is alleged that the claim is also one for damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff is the Editor of a newspaper called the "Khhichri Samachar" published at Mirzapur. The first defendant, Munshi Ali Husain, was the Deputy Magistrate of Mirzapur. The second defendant, Muhammad Mohsin, was the Kotwal or City Inspector. The third defendant was a Sub-Inspector stationed at Mirzapur. The fourth defendant was the officiating Superintendent of Police. The 5th defendant Jamna Das is a Jain resident of that town.

(2.) It appears that the Jains wanted to have a procession at Mirzapur and with that object applied to the District Magistrate for permission to carry the procession through the streets. Inquiries were made, with the result that the Magistrate permitted the procession to pass through the city under certain conditions. After this order was issued some of the Hindu residents of Mirzapur held a meeting and passed a resolution opposing the issue of the procession. On the 23rd of January 1907, the plaintiff, representing himself to be the spokesman of the Hindus, presented an application to the first defendant praying that the order permitting the issue of the procession should be withdrawn. On the same day the fifth defendant Jamna Das presented an application in which he stated that there was apprehension of a breach of the peace and he prayed that necessary steps should be taken to prevent a disturbance of the peace. The Deputy Magistrate who was then in charge of the City ordered a Police inquiry. The Kotwal submitted a report and after a consideration of that report the Magistrate recorded proceedings under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon the plaintiff and other persons to show cause why they should not furnish security to keep the peace on the 26th and 27th of January 1907, the dates fixed for the issue of the procession. The same day and by the same order he, for reasons stated therein, directed a warrant to issue for the arrest of the plaintiff and the other persons. The warrant contained a direction for the release of the arrested persons on their furnishing sufficient security the amount and description of which was specified in the warrant. On the 25th of January 1907, the plaintiff was arrested by the third defendant but he was not released on bail. He was brought before the Magistrate on the 26th and on the 27th he was set at liberty. His allegation is that there was a conspiracy between the defendants wrongfully to arrest him and that in pursuance of this conspiracy he was falsely imprisoned; that the Kotwal in spite of the order for admitting him to bail deliberately refused to release Kiln, -and that the Deputy Magistrate subsequently cancelled the order for bail in an illegal manner. For these acts he brought the present suit for compensation.

(3.) The Court of first instance dismissed the suit and the decree of that Court was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.