GRAHAM Vs. HENRY GIDNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18 May 1931 the plaintiff was arrested at Lalbazar, was taken under police escort--to the Park Street thana and there detained in the lock-up for about two hours. For this trespass to his. person he seeks damages from the defendant. The cause of action disclosed in the plaint is "false imprisonment." The plaint includes an allegation that the defendant "maliciously caused the arrest upon a false charge." It would be possible, I think, on this pleading to found a case of "malicious arrest." In point of fact, no issue of "malice" was raised and the case proceeded as one for "false imprisonment." The issues raised by Mr. Clough were as follows: 1. Did the defendant arrest the plaintiff or cause his arrest? 2. If so, was the arrest justifiable? 3. Damages. In my view, the vital questions involved in this suit are as follows: 1. Was the arrest of the plaintiff the act of the defendant or the act of the police? 2. If the latter, is the plaintiff entitled to recover on the basis that the information given to the police was false or was maliciously given. If so, was the information false? 3. If the arrest was the act of the defendant, is the defendant protected by any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, or by establishing reasonable and probable ground? 4. Is the defendant entitled to establish that the offence in question was in fact committed? If so was the offence committed, and is the defendant protected ?

(2.) I shall deal first with the facts, then with the law, and last with the conclusions at which I have arrived. The material events happened between 15 and 18 May 1931 inclusive. Very little need be said by way of introduction. The defendant, Sir Henry Gidney-has long been a personage in public life. He is the President of the Anglo-Indian Association, and he is, as he has himself described it, "the leader of the community." The plaintiff Graham is a youngish man of fine physique and meritorious war-record. The defendant had, at several stages of the plaintiff's career, assisted him in obtaining employment, and, until the events I am about to mention, the plaintiff professed to be an admirer and follower of the defendant. On the defendant's return from the Round Table Conference, early in 1931, apparently, there was a split in the community and the feelings of a considerable number of Anglo-Indians towards the defendant, including those of the plaintiff, underwent a change. The reasons for that change are not material, but, so far as it is relevant, I am prepared to assume that those of the plaintiff were genuine. An association in opposition to that of Sir Henry Gidney was founded, consisting largely of the younger and more ardent spirits. It was not unnatural that the plaintiff, with the qualities I have described, should have found or put himself at its head. The immediate cause of what took place was as follows: The ranks of the Anglo-Indian unemployed had become swollen by the discharge by the railway and other authorities of a considerable number of Anglo-Indian employees in order to replace them with Indian employees. With the rights or wrongs of this policy I have nothing whatever to do. As was inevitable however the section of the community led by the plaintiff, which included the Anglo- Indian unemployed, began in turn to agitate that the Indian staff employed by the defendant should be replaced by Anglo-Indians. Resolutions to this effect were passed at meetings, at which the plaintiff spoke with considerable heat, and it was decided that the result of these meetings should be conveyed to the defendant.

(3.) On the 15 the plaintiff, followed by a body of followers, proceeded to the office of the association in Park Street. It is clear that a number waited in the court-yard or on the stairs, and 20 or 30 entered with the plaintiff into each of the office rooms. As to what happened on that day in the offices of the association, considerable evidence has been given. I accept the evidence of Mr. Iyer, Col. Gidney's secretary, and Mrs. Gibson. Both gave their evidence quite clearly, and it is corroborated by the statement in writing given by them to the defendant. Mr. Chandler's evidence is exaggerated by the fact that he was personally involved in the quarrel which ensued.