A Judicial Officer is protected from liability for acts done in the discharge of his judicial duties, but this protection is only available if the officer has taken cognizance of the offence under S. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:
FALSE IMPRISONMENT - JUDICIAL OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT, 1850 - S. 1 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - JUDICIAL OFFICER ACTING IN DISCHARGE OF JUDICIAL DUTIES - PROTECTION AGAINST SUITS - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:

In March 1950, during communal disturbances in Assam, the appellant, a Sub-Divisional Officer and Magistrate, ordered the arrest and detention of the respondent without any formal complaint or police report. The respondent filed a suit for compensation for false imprisonment, alleging that the appellant acted maliciously and without lawful justification.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the appellant was not protected by the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, as he had not acted in the discharge of his judicial duties. The Court found that the appellant had not taken cognizance of any offence against the respondent under S. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that he had acted solely on the orders of the Deputy Commissioner.
Issues: Whether the appellant was acting in the discharge of his judicial duties when he ordered the arrest of the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appellant was not acting in the discharge of his judicial duties because he had not taken cognizance of any offence against the respondent under S. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found that the appellant had acted solely on the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, and that he had not exercised his own independent judgment in ordering the arrest.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not protected by the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, and that he was liable for damages for false imprisonment.

Judgment

SHAH, J. :- In an action for compensation for false imprisonment the Subordinate Judge, Lower Assam District, granted to the respondent Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee a decree for Rs. 5000. In appeal the High Court of Assam confirmed the decree. With certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution, this appeal is preferred.

2. In March 1950 in the district of Kamrup, State of Assam, there were communal disturbances resulting in rioting and arson. The appellant was at the material time Sub-Divisional Officer of the Barpeta Sub-Division and also held the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. A. C. Bhattacharjee was the Deputy Commissioner of the District and held the office of District Magistrate B. R. Chakravaty was the Circle Inspector of Police at Barpeta. The respondent Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee owned an extensive agricultural estate within the Barpetra Division. 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 confined in the lock-up for the night. Next morning the respondent was produced before the appellant who remanded him to custody. Eventually by order of the local First Class Magistrate, Mr. J. Barua, the respondent was released on March 20, 1950 on bail. It is common ground that neither on March 17, 1950 nor on any date thereafter, was any formal complaint lodged against the respondent charging him with an offence in connection with the riots, nor was any information recorded at any police station against the respondent in that behalf. The respondent had to appeal before the local First Class Magistrate on diverse occasions but the proceeding was adjourned because the Magistrate was awaiting "investigation reports" from the police. On May 27, 1950 Mr. J Barua recorded that "a great confusion exists amongst police officers about the case. It is surprising that the officer-in-charge should refer to the C. I. (Circle Inspector) as authority for the arrest and the latter to the Sub-Divisional Officer. No case also seems to have been registered at the police station. I fail to see under strength of what the accused has been sent up. No F. I. R. is also traceable in Court Office in which accused has been named. I find no justification for holding accused within the jurisdiction of Court under the present charge", and he issued an order on May 31, 1950 closing the proceeding.

3. 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 compensation for false imprisonment. The respondent submitted that as an active member of the Peace Committee formed by the State Government in co-operation with the other leading citizens of the locality to bring about harmony between the two communities, 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."

4. A joint written statement denying the averments made by the respondent was filed by the defendants. 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 concerned in some offences committed by a section of the local community on the lands belonging to the respondent, and that the case against the respondent was investigated carefully and "ultimately for want of conclusive evidence against him he was discharged by order dated May 31, 1950". The plea raised by the defendants in the suit in substance was that the respondent was arrested and detained in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document