A suit for damages for malicious prosecution is not exempt from payment of court-fees under the proviso to S. 7(1)(i) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970, which exempts only suits for damages for defamation.

( 1 ) WHETHER any Court-fee should be paid in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution is the only point which arises for consideration in the present revisional application, which was taken up for hearing after condonation of the delay of nine days in filing the application in view of the grounds taken in the petition under S. 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner Dhirendra Nath Mukherjee, a M. R. Dealer at Ukhra, P. S. Andal in the district of Burdwan, was criminally prosecuted on the complaint of the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Durgapur under S. 406/423 of the Indian Penal Code in G. R. Case No. 1349 of 1973 of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur. The petitioner was acquitted by the learned Magistrate by his order dt. 24-6-1983. Following that the petitioner instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the opposite party, the State of West Bengal, claiming Rs. 55,001/- as damages, being Money Suit No. 36 of 1983 in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Asansol.

( 3 ) THOUGH according to the petitioner no Court-fee is payable in such a suit under S. 7 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, the learned Subordinate Judge by his order No. 8 dt. 4-1-1984 directed him to pay Court-fees under cl. (i) of Section 7 of the Act.

( 4 ) IT is against the said order that the petitioner has come up in revision under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) MR. D. P. Adhikary, the learned Advocate, appearing in support of the revisional application contended that a suit for damages for defamation and one for damages for malicious prosecution being identical in nature and character and loss of reputation being one of the essential ingredients in both the cases, the learned Subordinate Judge should have held that no Court-fee is payable in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution like a suit for damages for defamation in view of the added proviso to cl. (i) of section 7 of the West Bengal Court-fees Act.

( 6 ) THE opposite party, the State of West Bengal, unfortunately went unrepresented, though notice of the application was duly served on the State.

( 7 ) SECTION 7 (1) of the West Bengal Court-fees Act, 1970 (Act X of 1970) provides as hereunder-"the amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :- (i) In suits for money including suits for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically according to the amount claimed. Provided that no fee shall be payable in suits for damages for defamation".

( 8 ) IT is clear from clause (i) of section 7 that Court-fee is payable in a suit for damages like any other money claim.

( 9 ) BY the West Bengal Court-fees (Amendment) Act, 1974 (West Bengal Act XLII of 1974) a proviso was, however, added to clause (i) of section 7 to provide that no Court-fee shall be payable in suits for damages for defamation.

( 10 ) IN their wisdom the Legislature did not consider it necessary to save any other class of suit from levy of Court-fees. The propriety or otherwise of such wisdom in the economic field is not for the Courts to consider.

( 11 ) THE language of the added proviso, as quoted above, is more than clear and leaves no such ambiguity as to include in its fold suits of any other class or description.

( 12 ) "it is a well-settled rule of law that all charges upon the subject must be imposed by clear and unambiguous language, because in some degree they operate as penalties : the subject is not to be taxed unless the language of the statute clearly imposes the obligation and language must not be strained in order to tax a transaction which, had the legislature thought of it, would have been covered by appropriate words. "in a Taxing Act", said Rowlatt J. , "one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no pr