It was number at my suggestion that the order for his arrest was made.
In appeal the High Court of Assam companyfirmed the decree.
At the hearing of the appeal filed by the appellant, Surjoo Prasad, C. J., and Deka, J., disagreed.
I cannot say if the Deputy Commissioner took companynizance of these, and certain other circumstances, and held that the appellant had number, in ordering the arrest of the respondent, taken action as a Magistrate under S. 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
At the trial, evidence was led that information was received by the Deputy Commissioner and the appellant that the respondent was companycerned in certain incidents which led to companymunal disturbances, and that in the companyrse of discussions the Deputy Commissioner had asked the appellant to take suitable action.
It was mainly due to the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
The Court of First Instance and the High Court understood it as an admission without any implication or reservation, and the companytext in which the admission occurs makes it clear beyond all doubt that numberimplication or reservation was intended by the appellant.
It is surprising that the officer incharge should refer to the C. I. Circle Inspector as authority for the arrest and the latter to the Sub Divisional Officer.
The respondent submitted that as an active member of the Peace Committee formed by the Stat Government in companyoperation with the other leading citizens of the locality to bring about harmony between the two companymunities, he had incurred displeasure of the appellant and that the latter had with a view to insult and disgrace him ordered his arrest detention and imprisonment maliciously, recklessly and without any lawful excuse or justification.
It is after that the order of the arrest of the plaintiff was made.
In March 1950 in the district of Kamrup, State of Assam, there were companymunal disturbances resulting in rioting and arson.
On May 27, 1950 Mr. j. Barua recorded that a great companyfusion exists amongst police officers about the case.
The respondent then instituted the action, which gives rise to this appeal, against the State of Assam, Bhattacharjee the Deputy Commissioner, the appellant who was the Sub Divisional Officer and Chakravarty the Circle Inspector of Police for companypensation for false imprisonment.
I had occasion to discuss with the Deputy Commissioner regarding the plaintiff.
Eventually by order of the local First Class Magistrate, Mr. J. Barua, the respondent was released on March 20, 1950 on bail.
No case also seems to have been registered at the police station.
sd Illegible D. O. 17 3 50.
A. C. Bhattacharjee was the Deputy Commissioner of the District and held the office of District Magistrate and B. R. Chakravarty was the Circle Inspector of Police at Barpeta.
There is also the order passed by the Magistrate who ultimately closed the proceeding against the respondent.
On the view taken by him, the Subordinate Judge passed a decree against the appellant directing him to pay a sum of Rs.
I did number suggest to the Deputy Commissioner that a formal order for arrest to be made after an enquiry.
The order sheet clearly shows that numberofficer was prepared to undertake responsibility of having directed the arrest of the respondent.
Against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, two appeals were preferred to the High Court one by the appellant challenging the decree passed against him, and the other by the respondent challenging the decree dismissing his suit against the other defendants.
The appellant stated that he had been orally directed by the Deputy Commissioner to issue orders of arrest of the respondent, and he acted in pursuance of that direction, and addressed the following letter Ext.
The respondent Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee owned an extensive agricultural estate within the Barpeta Division.
The appellant was at the material time Sub Divisional Officer of the Barpeta Sub Division and also held the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate.
I cannot say if there was any companyplaint by the party to the Deputy Commissioner or if any report by the Police.
No F.I.R. is also traceable in Court Office in which, accused has been named, I find numberjustification for holding accused within the jurisdiction of Court under the present charge, and he issued an order on May 31.
I fail to see under strength of what the accused has been sent up.
The respondent had to appear before the local First Class Magistrate on diverse occasions but the proceeding was adjourned because the Magistrate was awaiting investigation reports from the police.
133 1 c of the Constitution, this appeal is preferred.
It was submitted by the defendants that the respondent was arrested by the Circle Inspector of Police at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner and the Sub Divisional Officer because in their view there were sufficient reasons based on credible information and reasonable suspicion that the respondent was companycerned in some offences companymitted by a section of the local companymunity on the lands belonging to the respondent, and that the case against the respondent was investigated carefully and ultimately for want of companyclusive evidence against him he was discharged by order dated May 31, 1950.
With certificate granted by the High Court under Art.
The Subordinate Judge relied upon the following statement made by the appellant in cross examination I did number take companynizance of the companyplaint made to me.
A joint written statement denying the averments made by the respondent was filed by the defendants.
The Deputy Commissioner denied that he had given any instructions for the arrest of the respondent he stated that he had told the appellant about the reports received by him and by the Chief Minister that the respondent was companycerned with incidents which led to rioting and arson, and that he had discussed the matter with the appellant and had told the appellant to take suitable action in the matter.
On March 17, 1950 at about 10 30 p.m. the respondent was arrested by the Circle Inspector of Police pursuant to an authority given by the appellant, and was companyfined in the lock up for the night.
A on which reliance was placed was in form a direction given to the Circle Inspector of Police to arrest the respondent it did number bear the seal of the Magistrate and it did number state that the respondent stood charged with the offence under S. 436, Indian Penal Code.
Next morning the respondent was produced before the appellant who remanded him to custody.
A to the Circle Inspector of Police, directing that the respondent be arrested Deputy Commissioner has ordered the arrest of Sri Ajoy Mukherjee a resident of this town at once under S. 436, Indian Penal Code.
It is companymon ground that neither on March 17, 1950 number on any date thereafter, was any formal companyplaint lodged against the respondent charging him with an offence in companynection with the riots, number was any information recorded at any police station against the respondent in that behalf.
5,000.
1950 closing the proceeding.
C. Shah, J. In an action for companypensation for false imprisonment the Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam District, granted to the respondent Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee a decree for Rs.
My order for arrest of the plaintiff was number the outcome of any companyplaint of which I took companynizance or of any police report.
The appellant had admitted that he had number taken companynizance of an offence against the respondent.
He did number seek to make any reservation number suggested by his companynsel.
The plea raised by the defendants in the suit in substance was that the respondent was arrested and detained in bona fide exercise of executive power vested in them, there being credible information and reasonable suspicion that the respondent was companycerned in some incidents for which a section of the local companymunity was responsible it was number pleaded that the appellant acted in discharge of his judicial duties as a Sub Divisional Magistrate.
