HARI LAL SARNAKAR Vs. ABHOY CHARAN JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material facts giving rise to this case are as follows. The present petitioner Harilal Sarnakar presented an application before the Debt Settlement Board in respect of a debt due from him to his landlord, Bahadur Sing Singhi. That application was transferred by The Sub- Divisional Officer to the Milki Debt Settlement Board for disposal and an award was made by that Debt Settlement Board on 21-2-1941. The only creditor mentioned in the award was the landlord Bahadur Sing Singhi and there was only one debt included in the award. The opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, was a member of the Board in question. At some time subsequent to the preparation of The award false entries were made in the order-sheets of the Debt Settlement Board to indicate that an application had been made by the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, in respect of a debt by The petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha, and the original award was amended by the inclusion of this alleged debt of the petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha, and the date of the award was altered to 21.5.1941. Thereafter the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, moved the Certificate Officer for execution of the award. The petitioner then came to know of this falsified award and moved the Certificate Officer in the matter. The Certificate Officer directed the present petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Officer and the petitioner did so. The Appellate Officer held an enquiry in exercise of the powers conferred upon him Under Section 43 Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, went into a number of questions which were strictly not relevant to an appeal, and came to the conclusion that the order-sheet had been falsified and false entries had been made in it; that there had been no proper application by the opposite, party, Abhoy Charan Jha, to the Debt Settlement Board, and that the alteration of the award by the inclusion of the debt of the petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha, was fraudulently made behind the back of the present petitioner. He accordingly allowed the appeal and modified the award by cancelling that part of the award which referred to the debt of the petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha. Abbey Charan Jha then preferred an application in revision to the District Judge and presented the same to the Appellate Officer as required by Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The application in revision was rejected, the District Judge taking much the same view of the facts as that taken by the Appellate Officer.

(2.) Thereafter an application was made to the Collector for permission to prosecute the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha Under Section 54, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935 and a general permission was given by the Collector without any precise statement of the offence said to have been committed and without any indication whether the offence said to have been committed was an offence punishable Under Section 54(1)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.

(3.) Thereupon a petition of complaint was presented by the present petitioner against the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha.