Manlayak Singh vs Ramkirit and others

Dhavle, J.—This is a rule calling upon one Manlayak Singh to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under S. 199, I. P. C., in respect of certain statements contained in his application of 16th October last to this Court for a transfer of certain proceedings under S. 145, Criminal P. C., from the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dinapur. The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Manlayak Singh, saying that the facts stated in the petition were true to his knowledge.

The first statement to notice is the allegation in para. 8 of the petition that on 24th August 1939, when certain ijaradars who like Manlayak Singh were members of the second party in the proceedings before the Magistrate applied to him for an adjournment, the Magistrate in the presence of their advocate and others made an observation to the effect that the ijaradar is a mere farzidar of the Sehra Babus (the maliks), that even if this case be transferred, "Sehra Babu has to remain in the same sub-division" etc. Mr. Nirsu Narayan Sinha who appears for Manlayak Singh has stated that Manlayak is a gomasta of the Sehra Babus on Rupees 5 a month and is entirely innocent of English. It is not claimed that the Magistrate made his observations in any language but English. The allegation now in question is a repetition of what was stated in Manlayak''s application to the District Magistrate for a transfer of the proceedings before the matter was brought to this Court; and in showing cause on that occasion, as on the present occasion, the Magistrate says that the petitioner''s allegation is a hopeless distortion of what he had said. I do not wish to say anything more on the present occasion than can be helped, having regard to the fact that I am now merely considering the question whether an inquiry ought not to be made into an offence under S. 199, and not the question whether there are sufficient materials before me for Manlayak''s conviction. I will therefore content myself with saying that on present materials Manlayak''s statement in para. 8 of his application, which he swore was true to his knowledge, appears to be false and could not have been believed by him to be true. "What leads me to this conclusion is the circumstance that Manlayak made his application to the District Magistrate after the ijaradars of the Sehra Babus had applied to the District Magistrate for a transfer on grounds which were evidently felt to be inadequate coupled with the fact that there is no pretence that Manlayak could understand English, besides the Magistrate''s report and the probabilities of the situation.

In para 9 of his application Manlayak stated that the Magistrate did not prepare any note of his local inquiry or inspection of 2nd July 1939. The learned advocate who appears for him has referred to S. 148, Criminal P. C., which speaks of a local inquiry and to S. 539-B which speaks of a local inspection; and he has pointed out that the latter requires the Court without unnecessary delay, to record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection. But the inquiry or inspection in the present case was not held under either of these provisions of the law, and nothing really turns on such distinction as may be made between the two sections. That the Magistrate made a local inquiry in connexion with the proceeding (which, it is to be noted, was then a proceeding under S. 144), and made it in the presence of Manlayak among others is not disputed; and the inquiry report is on the record. Mr. Nirsu Narayan Sinha has, however, been able to point to several circumstances indicating that Manlayak may have believed that there was no such note on the record. It appears that two days after the inquiry Manlayak filed an urgent application for a copy of the note, but that this application was refused by Maulavi S. S. Zaffar Hossain, the Second Officer of Dinapur, on the ground that the records were not available. This might not unreasonably give the impression that the note was not on the record, for, it is hardly to be supposed that the second officer would refuse a copy merely because the Sub-Divisional Officer might have kept the whole record with himself. Nor did subsequent happenings help to displace such an impression or remove what confusion there may have been. The allegation that no note was prepared was made in Manlayak''s application to the District Magistrate for transfer; but this was not one of the grounds on which the District Magistrate called for an explanation, with the result that in dealing with that ground the District Magistrate did not notice the inspection note and only said that there was in fact no local inspection under the Criminal P. 0. What appears to have happened is that the learned Magistrate visited the village in his executive capacity.

This observation could only help to confirm the impression of Manlayak, whose urgent application for a copy had been rejected on palpably inadequate grounds, that no inspection note had been prepared. It has also been brought to my notice that when last month an application was made in this Court on Manlayak''s behalf for a copy of the inspection note, what was supplied to him was a copy not of the inspection note of 2nd July 1939, but of a note of the Magistrate dated 4th September which is found in the record of the District Magistrate though it is not at all clear how it came to be there. Manlayak''s allegation that the Magistrate did not prepare any inspection note is wrong in fact, but the circumstances placed before me by Mr. Nirsu Narayan Sinha do suggest that not only did he not know or believe it to be false but that he may well have believed it to be true.

In para. 12 Manlayak Singh speaks of undue pressure being brought to bear on his malik by the Magistrate for accepting arbitration. This again is said to be true to Manlayak''s knowledge. The allegation was made in the application to the District Magistrate but was not among the grounds on which the District Magistrate called for an explanation from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In his explanation to this Court the Magistrate says that he had asked the landlord to settle the matter by arbitration "which, as a matter of policy, a S. D. O. is required to do these days." The District

Magistrate saya on the same point that every Magistrate tries to settle such matters amicably, and with reference to Manlayak''s contention that the refusal of the malik to accept arbitration has caused great annoyance to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, observes that if the Magistrate were to be annoyed by the reluctance of any party to accept an arbitration, be will have to be annoyed practically every day. The learned advocate for Manlayak has contended that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not explicitly denied putting any pressure upon Manlayak''s malik to accept arbitration, and that it should therefore be taken from the Magistrate''s mention of "a matter of policy" and his reference to the fact that "executive and judicial functions are unfortunately vested in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate" that pressure was exercised on Manlayak''s maliks. I am not impressed by this contention, for it ignores the distinction between asking a party to settle a matter by arbitration and exercising undue pressure, or indeed any pressure at all, in asking a party to accept arbitration. I cannot, on present materials, believe that the Magistrate exercised any pressure on Manlayak''s maliks at all, especially as the petitioner has carefully refrained from explaining what the "undue pressure" was, and as there is no reason to think that anything was done through this low paid agent of the maliks.

The only other matter that it is necessary to refer to is the allegation in para. 13 of Manlayak''s petition regarding the formation of a conciliation board by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, with its first sitting at Bikram on 13th August 1939 at which the Magistrate delivered a speech from which It is apparent that he holds the view that the original tenants are in cultivating possession of the lands over which even possession had been delivered by the Civil Court by means of the writ of delivery of possession.

The Magistrate states the composition of the conciliation board including three landlords, two Congress workers, two Kisan workers, one big cultivator and Rai Bahadur Brijnandan Singh of Maner, a Government Official, and says that at the meeting which be called at Bikram four or five other persons were present. It is not pretended that Manlayak was among the persons called, and the affidavit does not say that he was present. The Magistrate adds that the idea in forming the committee is to help the tenants and landlords as well, so that disputes may be settled without litigation or resort to direct action.

In the circumstances it is inconceivable that the Magistrate said anything of the kind that Manlayak has put forward on oath in para. 13 of the application regarding the Magistrate''s views. It has been contended on Manlayak''s behalf that the Magistrate has not expressly denied the petitioner''s allegation and that therefore his reply should be taken to be a tacit admission of the matter charged by Manlayak. In my opinion, the Magistrate has said enough to warrant one in holding that he emphatically denies the allegation. I am not prepared to deal with the Magistrate''s explanation like the counter-affidavit of a party in answer to an affidavit filed by an applicant; and we have in Manlayak a man who in order to obtain a transfer, is making allegations on oath relating to matters, several of which were conducted in English, a language which he does not pretend to know. He could, prima facie, have no real knowledge of them himself at all, even though that did not prevent him from swearing the affidavit, nor has he attempted to indicate the sources of his knowledge of such matters.

The rule was supported by the Crown which, on instructions received from the Magistrate, is willing to prosecute. In my order of 29th January, I referred to the tendency I have been noticing recently on the part of applicants to make reckless allegations in the affidavits filed in this Court. Having taken into consideration all the circumstances, I am of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence under S. 199, I. P. C, that would appear, on the materials at present before me, to have been committed by Manlayak Singh in respect of the allegations contained in paras. 8, 12 and 13 of his transfer application of 16th October last. Let a complaint be made accordingly over the signature of the Registrar and forwarded to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

Order accordingly.