JUDGMENT

1. In our view, some of the cases have gone too far in holding that an act which may be bona fide, and which may be done under a mistaken claim of right or which may be due to a bona fide act of negligence, yet may also be shown to have been done with a criminal motive, or intention is, therefore, a criminal act, and as a consequence exempt under Article 35(ii) of the Schedule of the Small Cause Courts Act. We are not prepared to hold that merely because the facts stated are ambiguous and are, therefore, consistent with bona fides although they are also consistent with mala fides according to the correct inference to be drawn, the act is therefore, one necessarily of the kind referred to in this clause of the Schedule, We think that something more ought to be shown, namely that the plaintiff either by his specific allegations, in the plaint, or in some other form in the course of hearing, or by the nature of the evidence which he tendered at the hearing, distinctly alleged that the offence complained of was punishable under Ch. 17 of the Code.

2. There seem to be two strong reasons why this view should be insisted upon, and why the Courts should not go put of their way to ap