J E JAMES Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta summoning the appellant under Section 193 I.P. C, on a complaint made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 195(b), Criminal P.C. The case arises out of an unfortunate matrimonial trouble between the appellant and his wife. Apparently there had been unhappiness for some time between thorn, and mutual recrimination, which ultimately resulted in divorce proceedings instituted by her. The appellant went on leave in 1931, and when he returned to Calcutta he stayed with friends, and eventually with Mr. Hope Johnson whose name was mentioned in the matrimonial proceedings. This lady's husband was dead, and she used to take in paying guests. On 28 October 1932, the appellant was served with a notice in divorce proceedings.

(2.) On 1 December he left Calcutta for Bandel, and on his return found that Mrs. James had entered Mrs. Hope Johnson's flat in the absence of her and her daughter and servants, on the night he left Calcutta. According to the evidence of the appellant and Mrs. Hope Johnson and others, the flat was found in a state of disorder, and a gramophone and a suit case were missing. The appellant also missed a sum of Rs. 410 which he had left in an unlocked drawer. The appellant reported the matter to the police and Mrs. James and her lady friend who accompanied her to the flat were charged with theft of these articles and the money. Mrs. James claimed the gramophone and the suit case, which turned out to be a blouse case worth about Rs. 10, presents given to her by her husband. She did not dispute the fact that he had paid for them both, except that the gramophone which was bought on the instalment system, was not fully paid up. The learned Magistrate deduced from this fact that it was obvious that Mrs. James did not act dishonestly. We are not quite sure that such a deduction can be made even on the evidence as it stands, because it was quite unnecessary to throw the whole of the furniture of tht flat into disorder in order to possess herself of these articles. However it is perfectly obvious that she was an angry woman, and no doubt the appellant was equally angry when he informed the police of what had happened. Probably the Magistrate was quite right in treating the case against her as trivial one which he dismissed.

(3.) But during the examination of the appellant he was asked about the Rs. 410 and where he got this money from. He answered that it was part of a sum of Rs. 500 which he had borrowed from Mrs. Hope Johnson, to pay his lawyer in connexion with the divorce proceedings which were the going on. When Mrs. Hope Johnson came into the box to he cross-examined she having been absent when the appellant made his statement about the loan, she was asked a number of question about the car, and the taxi, and the time when the appellant returned home, and then without further introduction she was asked whether she had lent Mr. James Rs. 500. She shook her head and said "I did not lend Mr. James Rs. 500. I have my own business" and then she paused and said "as far as I can remember." The next question was whether she had helped Mr. James to assault Mrs. James on the night of 9 October 1932, and whether there was a double bed in their room and other questions. It is clear therefore that question put to her about the loan was an isolated one, without explaining to her what the question was directed to, when the loan was made, what it was for, or any of the circumstances surrounding it. If she had been asked these questions, it might possibly be that she would have remembered assisting him with money which he urgently required for meeting the demands of his lawyers. However the learned Magistrate allowed the evidence to be left in this incomplete state, and came to the conclusion that the appellant's statement was a deliberate falsehood.