BAI KASTURBAI Vs. VANMALIDAS LAKMIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of a suit No. 4310 of 1923, which was beard by Mulla, J., and disposed of by him on July 3, 1924. The suit was one by the plaintiff Kasturbai for a dissolution of partnership and for partnership accounts. Among the other defences pleaded by the defendant, he said that there was no partnership between himself and Kasturbai, and that a certain agreement evidencing the partnership had not been acted upon. The learned judge who heard the suit came to a, conclusion adverse to the defendant upon that issue, and, in the course of doing so, he expressed himself very strongly as to the conduct of the defendant in the suit. The following passage from his judgment shows his opinion upon this matters: As regards the defendant I have no hesitation in saying that it is rarely that one comes across a witness of his type, who is not ashamed in telling a series of lies barefacedly in this Court. The story about his brother being the owner I hold is a false invention.

(2.) The suit ended in a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for a Rule to the defendant to show cause why sanction for his criminal prosecution should not be given and why he should not be prosecuted Criminally for having made on oath statements which were false and which he knew or believed to be false and for having given intentionally false evidence on oath in the proceedings in the said suit. The Rule was issued in these terms, and has now come before me for hearing and disposal. It is unfortunate that the day on which this Rule was issued was the last day Mulla, J., held office as a Judge of this Court.

(3.) Before coming to the merits of this matter I must notice two preliminary points that have been urged by Mr. Lalji on behalf of the defendant. In the first place it is urged that the Rule is not in. the correct form. It is no doubt true that the procedure by way of sanction for prosecution is no longer in force since the amendment of the Cr.P.C. in 1922; but this is a matter of form and not of substance and as a matter of strict law no notice would be necessary to the defendant before taking proceedings against him under the law which now exists. It is not thus open to him to complain of the formal defect of this Rule, and even if he is strictly entitled to notice, before the Court takes action against him--and no doubt it is right that he should have notice--still this Rule fully informs him as to the nature of the proceedings sought to be taken against him. Therefore, there is no substance in this point.