Back
1934 Supreme(Rang) 59
HIGH COURT OF RANGOON
Baguley, J.
Abdul Gafoor – Appellant
Versus
Kalicharan – Respondent
Decided On : 22-06-1934
JUDGMENT
Baguley, J - These two appeals arise out of two suits filed in the Township Court of Nyaunglebin East for recovery by two different persons of damages for false and malicious prosecution. Both the plaintiffs, Ramlagan and Abdul Gafoor, had been prosecuted by Kalicharan in one case before the 4th Additional Magistrate of Nyaunglebin under Section 406, Penal Code. Abdul Gafoor had been acquitted and Ramlagan had been discharged. At the trials of the civil cases and in the appeals arising from the trials the statements made by various witnesses at the trials were compared with the statements which they had made in the criminal proceedings, but the provisions of Section 145, Evidence Act, were entirely ignored. The statements made in the criminal trial were not properly proved, and the witnesses did not have their attention drawn in cross-examination to the particular points in which their evidence in the civil trials differed from the statements which they had made in giving evidence before the Magistrate. A similar point was dealt with by the Privy Council in Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Srinivas Pandit 1915 P.C. 7. Both advocates' who appear, in these two appeals, though on opposite sides agree that this is the case and that the trials have been conducted wrongly throughout. Fortunately the Township Judge who tried the cases has been transferred; so the cases can be retried in the Court in which they were Originally tried. I therefore set aside both judgments and decrees appealed against and direct that both cases be retried ab initio by the present Township Judge of Nyaunglebin Bast. All costs hitherto to be costs in the cases as ultimately decided. I would note that) if by any mischance these new trials result in fresh appeals, they should be taken up by the District Judge himself if the then occupant of the post of Additional District Judge is the same officer who dealt with the appeals in the first instance.
