NAGARMULL CHAUDHURI Vs. JHABARMULL SUREKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case there must be a decree for the plaintiff, and I assess the damages at Rs. 3,000. Para, (1) of the plaint reads as follows: The defendant, on 3 January 1930, maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause, preferred a charge of perjury against the plaintiff before this Honourable Court and made the application-copy whereof is filed herewith and obtained a Rule, copy whereof is filed herewith, and, on 18 March 1930, obtained the order, copy of which is filed herewith, and caused the plaintiff to be sent for trial on the charge referred to in the said order of 18 March 1930, above- mentioned, in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, and to be arrested and imprisoned, and caused wide publicity to be given to the same in order to cause loss and damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was kept in custody until the plaintiff was released on bail and furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 500 on 7 April 1930.

(2.) Paragraph (2) refers to the appeal from the order of 18 March 1930. Para. (3) mentions the discharge of the plaintiff as the result of the decision of this Court on appeal.

(3.) The short facts are as follows: The plaintiff gave certain evidence on 2 December, 1929, in an examination under Section 36, Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, the insolvency being that of one Khemkarandas Khemka. The plaintiff had previously, as the gomasta of Kanhayalal Sureka, the grand-father of the present defendant, verified the plaint in a suit in the High Court upon certain hundis. The evidence in the proceedings in insolvency was connected, in a manner which need not be discussed, with the facts mentioned in the plaint. The defendant applied before this Court,. on the Original Side, on 3 January 1930, setting out some of the answers given by the plaintiff in the examination under Section 36, Insolvency Act, and setting out para. 5 of the plaint, to which I have referred, and prayed for a rule under Section 476, Criminal P.C., calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why a complaint should not issue against him for perjury. A rule was issued and the plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition, in which, among other things, ha set out various incidents from which the hostility of the present defendant to the plaintiff might be gathered and contended, that no prima facie, or any case of perjury could be founded upon the materials placed before the Court. The Court, on 18th March 1930, made an order, the formal part of which was, according to the form now in use, to the following effect: That the Court being of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made upon the offences, etc., which appear to have been committed by the said Nagarmull Chaudhuri, etc., this Court doth hereby record a finding to that effect and doth hereby order that a complaint in respect thereof be made in writing signed by the Hon ble LortWilliams, J,