GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE Vs. KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kumar Singh or Kumar Singh Lai who described himself as "by profession mukhtar, practising as mukhtar in Chamber, at Purnea", filed a plaint claiming damages for defamation from Babu Durga Prasad, a senior member of the Purnea Bar, together with an application for permission to sue as a pauper. The application was opposed by the opposite party and also by Government, and was dismissed by Mr. S.A. Fatb, Subordinate Judge of Purnea, to whom it fell to dispose of it. Kumar Singh thereupon made a petition to the Governor in Council, through the District and Sessions Judge, Purnea, praying for sanction under Section 197, Criminal P.C. to prosecute the Subordinate Judge under Section 196, I.P.C., for corruptly using the evidence of Bam; Khelawan Mistry (a witness for the upon site party in the pauper proceedings) as true, knowing it to be false.

(2.) The petition was sent by post in an envelope addressed.1 to the then District and Sessions Judge by name. Mr. P.C. Chaudhuri, the District Judge, noticed this and called upon Kumar Singh to appear and state the facts fully and swear an affidavit in support of them, Kumar Singh appeared and stated that he had addressed the envelope personally to Mr. Chaudhuri as the petition was of a confidential nature and that the petition was really meant for the Court of the District Judge. He also offered to make a statement in support of the charges made by him against the Subordinate Judge in; the petition, and Mr. Chaudhuri accordingly recorded his statement. Kumar Singh also swore an affidavit before the Sheristadar of the District Judge in support of his allegations, but Mr. Chaudhuri required an affidavit sworn before a First) Class Magistrate. Kumar Singh did not supply this, nor did he appear again before Mr. Chaudhuri.

(3.) After looking into the papers, Mr. Chaudhuri decided, that Kumar Singh's application be forwarded to Government for orders, with a copy of his orders in which he had arrived at the conclusions that there was no reasonable ground whatever for attributing a corrupt intention to the Subordinate Judge in dismissing Kumar Singh's pauper application, that Kumar Singh ought to be prosecuted under Section 211, I.P.C., and that Mr. Chaudhuri would have had no hesitation in filing a complaint under that section but for the fact that the petition was really addressed to the Governor in Council.