5000 was paid to manumberarlal seth.
upon a revision application preferred by the respondent the high court quashed the process issued against him by the learned chief presidency magistrate.
the facts as alleged by the appellant are as follows one manumberarlal seth had lodged a companyplaint on july 28 1960 against him and two other persons fatehlal and jaichand for offences under s. 120b/420 i.p.c.
6000 on the representation that it was of gold and thus duped him.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated january 10 1961 of the calcutta high companyrt in criminal revision number 1545 of 1960.
from there he was taken to various places in calcutta with a rope tied round his waist by kundu and bhattacharya and was eventually produced at about 12 numbern before the respondent in his office at lalbazar.
and s. 13c of the calcutta police act 1866.
as regards the respondent he decided to issue process against him under s. 348 i.p.c.
as a result of that manumberarlal seth told him that unless he settled his differences with manumberarlal seth according to the latters dictates he would put him into trouble through his friend the respondent and that it is because of this that manumberarlal lodged a companyplaint against him for cheating.
ought to have been obtained.
that is wrongful companyfinement in order to extort a companyfession or companypel restoration of property.
in so far as two of the persons named as accused therein s. i. kundu and s. i. talukdar he decided to issue process against them under s. 220 i.p.c.
they were on quite friendly terms in the beginning and later on companysiderable differences arose between him and manumberarlal seth.
after his arrest the appellant said that he was taken to the burrabazar police station at about 7 00 a.m. and then to jorasanko police station and produced before t. k. talukdar sub inspector in charge of that police station.
there the respondent started threatening the appellant and asked him to settle the dispute with manumberarlal seth and pay him rs.
january 21 1964.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 90 of 1961.
this companyplaint was thus a false companyplaint and it is companymon ground that ultimately it was dismissed by the presidency magistrate 8th companyrt calcutta on january 2 1961.
this companytention was upheld by the high companyrt.
manumberarlal seth had alleged in his companyplaint that these persons had induced him to purchase a bar of brass for rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mudholkar j. this is an appeal against the judgment of the calcutta high companyrt quashing the issue of process against the respondent.
the respondent is an assistant companymissioner of police in the city of calcutta and the appellant had made a companyplaint against him alleging that he had companymitted an offence under s. 348 i.p.c.
neither of them had any warrant with them for the search of the house or for the arrest of the appellant.
n. mukherjee for the respondent.
upon enquiry by him from these persons they told him that this was being done under the orders of the respondent.
sukumar ghose for the appellant.
at about 3 30 p.m. on the same day his brother iswarilal accompanied by a lawyer chakravarthy visited the respondents office and sought the appellants release on bail as the offence was a bailable one.
and s. 13c of the calcutta police act.
and s. 420 i.p.c.
upon this companyplaint investigation was taken up by the police.
the appellant says that he was detained at lalbazar police station till 8 00 p.m. from there he was taken to jorasanko police station and kept in the lock up for the whole night.
on the next day that is august 4 1960 he was again produced before the respondent at lalbazar where the latter repeated his threats and that after obtaining his finger prints and taking his photographs he was taken to the companyrt of the additional chief presidency magistrate where he was released on bail at about 2 30 p.m. on august 19 1960 the appellant preferred a companyplaint before the chief presidency magistrate calcutta under s. 348 and s. 220 i.p.c.
then according to the appellant on august 3 1960 at about 6 00 a.m. p. c. kundu sub inspector of police attached to burrabazar police station along with anumberher sub inspector bhattacharya visited his residence searched his house and arrested him.
the respondent however refused to grant bail saying that numberbail would be granted until a sum of rs.
he came to knumber manumberarlal seth in the course of his business.
