BAJO SAHU Vs. CHEDI BARHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The attempt in India to avoid technicalities and the complete lack of training in drawing pleadings in both the advocates engaged in the Courts and the Judges of the Courts as well, has led to the confusion which has arisen in this case. The plaintiff brought an action against two persons who had given certain information to the police regarding his (the plaintiff s) character. Exactly what that information was it is unnecessary for me to state. The plaintiff's case was that as a result the police searched his house. He then proceeded to bring an action which was entirely unknown to the law economic He called it an action for malicious house search. That an action for searching a house illegally may be maintained, there can be no dispute. But it is an action of an entirely different character from the one the plaintiff brought. If the plaintiff was to bring an action for malicious house search it would be an action against the police who searched his house. But that would not be an action raising issues which are raised in an action for malicious prosecution. Both the Courts below treated this as an action for malicious prosecution and the District Judge has spoken of reasonable and probable cause.

(2.) I repeat, there is no such action known to the law. It would be an action in trespass if it was brought against the police and the plaintiff in that case would have to establish not the lack of reasonable and probable cause, but that the police had gone beyond their powers given to them by the law, for instance Section 165, Criminal P.C. or that they had gone beyond their powers which the warrant which they might have held entitled them to exercise. But the action was brought against the persons who gave information to the police, and it is neither an action for malicious house search which as I say, economic is unknown to the law, in or is it an action for trespass, but it would be an action for slander. None of these matters has been considered but one matter has been, and that is a question of fact, namely whether the defendants gave information to the police as the plaintiff alleged. It is possible on the finding to come to the conclusion that the Judges in the Courts below were of the opinion that some information was given to the police, but it is quite clear that they have found that it was not as a result of this information that the police acted. Now, the fact that the police did not act upon the information would not in any way affect the plaintiff's right of action for slander. But it is a matter to be taken into consideration in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the plaintiff should be allowed to withdraw his suit and bring another suit raising the proper issues. It may not, as I have said and repeat, have been an obstacle in law to the plaintiff's suit for damages for slander, but the fact that the police appear not to have acted upon any statement made by the defendants rather indicates that there is very little substance in a case for slander.

(3.) I should have referred to the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Bahabal Shah V/s. Tarak Nath Choudhry (1897) 24 Cal. 691 and Clarke V/s. Brojendra Kishore (1909) 36 Cal. 433 where illegal searches of houses have been treated on their proper footing as trespass. In my judgment the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The appeal fails on grounds entirely different from those upon which the lower Appellate Court has dealt with the matter. Both the Courts below completely confused the issues.