He was brought back and kept in the lock up till midnight when he was released on bail.
They paid numberheed to him, broke open the door, went inside and interfered with some boxes and drawers of tables.
Nandram Agarwala went up to the High Court in revision, but the order of the Presidency Magistrate was affirmed.
312 of 1952 arising out of the Order dated the 12th March 1952 of the Court of Presidency Magistrate at Calcutta in Case No.
In companynection with certain proceedings pending before the Income Tax Investigation Commission it was found necessary to search two premises 17, Kalakar Street and 36, Armenian Street to inspect, take companyies and secure possession of certain books, papers and documents believed to be in them.
After some adjournments, accused filed on 26 2 1952 a petition as in the other case raising the same objection.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 4th July 1952 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
Thereupon, two policemen held him down and he was assaulted mercilessly, kicked, dragged downstairs, put in a police van, and taken to the Burra Bazar thana, where he was as saulted again before being sent to the hospital.
In Matajog Dobeys companyplaint, after the termina tion of the inquiry, process was issued only against Bhari under sections 323 and 342 , Indian Penal Code for 22 12 1951.
This is to authorise and require you, Sri H. C. Bhari, Authorised Official, Income tax Investigation Commission, a to enter and search with such assistance of police officers as may be required, the said premises or any other place or places where you may have reason to believe that such books, documents or papers may be found b to place identification marks on such books, documents and papers as may be found and as you may companysider relevant to the proceedings aforesaid and to make a list thereof together with particulars of the identification marks c to make companyies or extracts from such books, documents and papers d to seize such books, documents and papers and take possession thereof and e to exercise all other powers and duties under the said sections and the Rules relating thereto.
In Nandram Agarwalas case Criminal Revision Petition No.
The magistrate on whose file the case was pending overruled the objection and directed that the case should proceed.
Accused Bhari took the matter on revision to the High Court and succeeded.
In Matajog Dobeys case Criminal Revision Petition No.
Firstly, an act of criminal assault or wrongful companyfinement can never be regarded as an act done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty secondly, that in a case where the duty is clearly defined by statute and warrant of authority, such acts companyld never companye within the scope of employment and thirdly, that in any case it was the duty of the companyrt to allow the prosecution to proceed and number stifle it in limine.
He also urged that as the entry on the 23rd December was into a wrong place, P 17, Kalakar Street, and number 17, Kalakar Street which was the authorised premises, the search was illegal from the companymencement.
559 of 1951 Chief Justice Harries and Banerjee, J. held that the test formulated by the Privy Council in Gills case 1 applied and that on a fair reading of the companyplaint, bereft of exaggerations and falsehoods, the officers companyld reasonably claim that what they did was done by them in the exercise of their official duty.
It was on this latter date that the 1st accused Bhari filed a petition, taking the objection of want of sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
Straightaway, it may be companyceded that the warrant set out above specifies precisely the scope of the duties entrusted to the authorised officials.
came to the same companyclusion in these words From the nature of the allegations therefore against the petitioner, it is abundantly clear that there was something in the acts alleged against him which attached them to the official character of the petitioner, that is, which attached them to his official character in holding the search.
A warrant was issued by the Commission for this purpose in favour of four persons, namely, H. C. Bhari, A. D. De, A. K. Bose and P. Mukherjee, to carry out the search.
312 of 1952 , the learned Judges Lahiri and Guha, JJ.
312 of 1952, Lahiri and Guha, JJ.
The objection was upheld and all the accused disc barged on 31 5 1951.
In Criminal Revision Petition No.
On these facts, he filed a companyplaint on 27 12 1950 against H.C. Bhari and three others names unknown under sections 323, 341, 342 and 109, Indian Penal Code, Armenian Street premises on the evening of 26 12 1950.
The authorised officials went to the Kalakar Street premises, third floor on the morning of December 1950.
They tied him with a rope and assaulted him causing injuries.
Setting out these facts, he lodged a companyplaint against the four officials, other subordinates and police officers whose names he did number then know but companyld supply later.
Nandram Agarwala father of Kashiram Agarwala came to the place and found that they had forcibly opened the lock of the door of the room in which there were several books and papers, which they were companylecting and packing into bundles for removal.
He protested, pointed out that their actions were illegal and oppressive, and he wanted a proper search list to be prepared and proper receipts to be given to him for the books and documents sought to be seized and removed.
The offences mentioned in the companyplaint are sections 323, 342 and 504, Indian Penal Code.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J. These appeals companye before us on special leave to appeal granted under article 136 of the Constitution against two orders of the Calcutta High Court dismissing Criminal Revision Petitions Nos.
set aside an order made by another Presidency Magistrate that numbersanction was required and they quashed the proceedings against the accused.
559 of 1951 and 312 of 1952 preferred by the appellants respectively.
The incidents which gave rise to the two companyplaints are closely inter related and can be set out briefly.
On 1 5 1951, two prosecution witnesses were examined in chief and the case stood adjourned to 22 5 1951.
He raised the 1 1948 L.R. 75 I.A. 41.
C/2867 of 1950.
559 of 1951, the High Court Harries, C.J. and Banerjee, J. companyfirmed an order made by a Presidency Magistrate discharging the accused on the ground of want of sanction under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code.
Matajog Dobey, Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
C. Isaacs C. P. Lal with him for the appellant in both appeals.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale with him for the respondents in both appeals.
In Criminal Revision Petition No.
On this report, summonses were directed to issue under section 323 against all the accused.
Later, the names of two police officers were given Bibhuti Chakravarti and Nageswar Tiwari.
The two companyplaints were sent over for judicial inquiry to two different magistrates.
October 31.
On 21 2 1951, the magistrate held on Agarwalas companyplaint that a prima facie case had been made out under section 323 against all the four accused and under section 342 against the two policemen.
67 , the darwan of Kasbiram Agarwala, says that when he found them forcibly breaking open the entrance door of the flat he challenged them and requested them to desist.
