Balchand and another Vs Tarak Nath Sadhu

Chaudhuri, J.@mdashI have taken some time to consider this matter, having regard to the way in which the matter was placed before me by the accused persons. Under the rules of the Small Cause Court the Registrar of that Court is the officer who is entitled to decide the question of service of summons, and in so doing, he is entitled to take evidence, and these proceedings are certainly in the nature of judicial proceedings, and therefore the matter strictly arises within his jurisdiction. It cannot be said that he was acting in a ministerial capacity, and I find from the petition itself that, so far as the proceedings relating to the services of summons are concerned, the whole of such proceedings were carried on before him. He makes out a list after the service is ready and the cases then go before the Judges. In this matter he granted the sanction upon an application made by the Public Prosecutor who was apparently moved by the Chief Judge of the Court to make such an application. An objection was taken that in granting such sanction the persons upon whose statements the Registrar relied were not examined on oath. No doubt the statements as taken down do not show that they were examined on oath. The words "S. O" or "S. A" are not to be found there, but yet under the Indian Oaths Act, sec 13, if there was an omission to administer the oath, or affirmation, the irregularity, if any, is cured. There is ample authority for that proposition; amongst others see The Queen v. Sewa Bhogta (1) which was referred to in Nundo Lal Bose v. Aistarini Dasi (2)--but the point was not dealt with --and Queen-Empress v. Shava (3), it having been held that accidental or negligent omission in taking oath is saved by sec. 13 of the Oaths Act. It seems to me that there was no irregularity in granting such sanction, and under the circumstances, I must discharge the rule. In such matter, the application being of a quasi-criminal nature, I discharge the rule, but do not make any order for costs as against the Applicants.