Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Therefore, there can be no more argument against the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition against the order of the Election Tribunal when that Tribunal is giving decision of election disputes under the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, in regard to elections to Municipalities and Local Boards.

4. The next objection taken by the learned Counsel against the maintainability of this Civil Revision Petition was on the ground that the respondent in the original Petition was bound to answer the interrogatories as it was intended to simplify the matters before the actual trial of the petition took place; and that as a matter of fact, all the questions that have been included in the interrogatories to be administered to the respondent in the original petition are quite simple and do not lead to any complications; and that it was within the power of the Election Tribunal to order such interrogatories. It is true that under Order 11, Rule 1, and following the rules under that order the Election Tribunal, acting as a Tribunal in conformity with the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure, is empowered to order interrogatories. But, before interrogatories could be ordered, it is also incumbent upon the Tribunal functioning as a judicial authority to apply its mind and see the effect, import and significance of the interrogatories that are sought to be administered to the respondent by the petitioner in the original petition. Though the interrogatories have been claimed by the learned Counsel for the respondent in this Civil Revision Petition to be quite harmless and simple, still, it cannot be denied that when they will be put to the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition, to be answered by him, there will be a lot of inconvenience and also incrimination of himself by reason of the answers that he is expected to give to these questions. Simply because the Election Tribunal has powers under the Code of Civil Procedure under which the Election Tribunal proceedings are to be conducted, it does not mean, however, that all interrogatories that are submitted to the Court could be directed against the respondent forthwith. If there is any objection from the respondent to the answering of these interrogatories, it is the bounden duty of the Court to examine as to how far they are tenable in the present case. A reading of the interrogatories would certainly indicate that these interrogatories are not so innocent and so simple as the learned Counsel would appear to make them. That the respondent is not bound to answer the interrogatories which are likely to lead into an incrimination of himself in any criminal offence, has been held in several cases of the English as well as the Indian Courts. Suffice it for me to refer to only two decisions of the English cases reported in Queen's Bench Division Volume II and X. The first decision is in Atherley v. Harvey (1876) L.R. 2 Q.B. 524, 525, 528 and 529, where it has been held, Interrogatories asking the defendant whether he has composed or published an alleged libel arc objectionable and will be struck out without requiring the defendant to object to them by way of answer.

The third Judge also concurred with the other two Judges. In Lamb v. Munster (1882-83) L.R. 10 Q.B. 110-111, it was held, An objection to answer interrogatories which is made by affidavit on the ground of the tendency of the answer to criminate the person interrogated may be valid, although not expressed in any precise form of words, if, from the nature of the question and the circumstances, such a tendency seems likely or probable. In an action for libel the defendant pleaded a denial of the publication, and to interrogatories asking him, in effect, whether he published the libel he stated by his affidavit in answer : 'I decline to answer all the interrogatories upon the ground that my answer to them 'might' tend t o criminate me.

It was held in this decision that this answer was sufficient not to lay the interrogatories.

The learned Judges have observed in the course of the Judgment.

It becomes the duty of the Judge to look at the nature and all circumstances of the case and the effect of the question itself, to see whether it is a question the answer to which will really tend to criminate the witness. Lamb v. Munster (1882-83) L.R. 10 Q.B. 111 and 113.

It was further observed by Field, J., I should not regard the form of words, but look to see whether answering would be likely to have or probably would have such a tendency to criminate, and bearing in mind the cardinal rule that a man shall not be compelled to criminate himself, I should almost prefer a man to be careful and say the answer might tend to criminate, and I should be slow to commit him to prison for not doing that which the law says he is not bound to do. Lamb v. Munster (1882-83) L.R. 10 Q.B. 111 and 113.

Applying the principle of these two decisions, and scrutinising the interrogatories, it is clearly evident to my mind that in the present case, the petitioner (respondent in the lower Court) is asked whether he has written the letters, and did the several acts referred to in the interrogatories; and if he answers them, they may endanger him, and if that answer is not in any way mala fide, then certainly it ought to be considered sufficient as not to entitle the Court to order the interrogatories. If the witness called upon to answer interrogatoties says this that the answer would tend to incriminate him, meaning thereby that it would tend to bring criminal prosecution for a crime of which, he might be innocent in fact, and of which he might be accused, certainly that would be a situation where the interrogatories cannot be allowed.