GIRIDHAR SARKAR Vs. HARISH CHANDRA CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the present case can be distinguished from the facts of the case cited by the learned Sessions Judge in his letter of reference, namely, the case of Deputy Legal Remembrancer V/s. Mir Sarwar Jan 6 C.W.N. 845. In that case the warrant signed by the Serishtadar did not show on the face of it that the Serishtadar had signed in the exercise of the authority delegated to him by the Judge. But here we find that the Serishtadar who signed the warrant purported to make that signature "by order." We think, therefore, that the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act can be applied to the present case, and we hold that the statement that appeared in the face of the warrant that the Serishtadar signed "by order" can be presumed to be true, and that we should hold, in the absence of anything to suggest the contrary, that he was actually the officer appointed by the Court to sign processes as required by Clause 2 of Rule 24, Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) WE accordingly refuse to accept this reference and direct that the papers be returned. The accused must surrender to their bail and undergo the nexpried portion of their sentence.