Skip to content


Giridhar Sarkar and ors. Vs. Harish Chandra Chowdhury - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in73Ind.Cas.328
AppellantGiridhar Sarkar and ors.
RespondentHarish Chandra Chowdhury
Cases ReferredDeputy Legal Remembrancer v. Mir Sarwar Jan
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 114(e) - civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxi, rule 24(2)--warrant signed by serishtadar 'by order'--presumption. - .....namely, the case of deputy legal remembrancer v. mir sarwar jan 6 c.w.n. 845. in that case the warrant signed by the serishtadar did not show on the face of it that the serishtadar had signed in the exercise of the authority delegated to him by the judge. but here we find that the serishtadar who signed the warrant purported to make that signature 'by order.' we think, therefore, that the presumption under section 114(e) of the evidence act can be applied to the present case, and we hold that the statement that appeared in the face of the warrant that the serishtadar signed 'by order' can be presumed to be true, and that we should hold, in the absence of anything to suggest the contrary, that he was actually the officer appointed by the court to sign processes as required by clause 2.....
Judgment:

1. The facts of the present case can be distinguished from the facts of the case cited by the learned Sessions Judge in his letter of reference, namely, the case of Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Mir Sarwar Jan 6 C.W.N. 845. In that case the warrant signed by the Serishtadar did not show on the face of it that the Serishtadar had signed in the exercise of the authority delegated to him by the Judge. But here we find that the Serishtadar who signed the warrant purported to make that signature 'by order.' We think, therefore, that the presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act can be applied to the present case, and we hold that the statement that appeared in the face of the warrant that the Serishtadar signed 'by order' can be presumed to be true, and that we should hold, in the absence of anything to suggest the contrary, that he was actually the officer appointed by the Court to sign processes as required by Clause 2 of Rule 24, Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code.

2. We accordingly refuse to accept this reference and direct that the papers be returned. The accused must surrender to their bail and undergo the nexpried portion of their sentence.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //