RAMNARAIN PRASAD Vs. RAM KISHUN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent appeal is by the plaintiff and arises out of a suit by him to recover damages from the defendant for malicious prosecution. It is unnecessary to go into the story of the occurrence which gave rise to the prosecution of the plaintiff in any great detail, but it may be shortly stated as follows: It seems that the defendant who is the sub-postmaster of Mirzapur stated that he had sent to the plaintiff who is the branch postmaster at Rasulpur in Saran a sum of Rs. 200 and that that sum had been received by the plaintiff and misappropriated. The defendant lodged an information with the police which resulted in the prosecution of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was acquitted and it was held that the prosecution was false and malicious. The acquittal took place on 17 March 1928 and a year later on 16 March 1929 the plaintiff began the present suit against the defendant for damages. The defence by the defendant consisted of a general denial of the allegations by the plaintiff and a series of statements to the effect that the complaint instituted by him was not malicious and was not instituted with any improper motive and that the plaintiff had not suffered any damage.

(2.) It would appear that in the argument before the Munsif who heard the case the defendant urged that the Secy. of State ought to have been made a party to the suit. It is difficult to see how he raised this argument but apparently it was taken because of some extraordinary misreading of Section 80, Civil P.C. At any rate the Munsif quite properly decided that it was not necessary to make the Secy. of State a party to the dispute. The issues which the Munsif settled and decided were six in number. 1. Was the defendant prosecutor of the criminal case? 2. Is the suit legally maintainable against the defendant? (Here it may be said that it was under this issue that the defendant had argued that the Secy. of State ought to have been made a party). 3. Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? 4. Was the criminal case maliciously false and without reasonable and probable cause? 5. Is plaintiff entitled to any damages? If so, to what amount? 6. Is the amount claimed as damages excessive? The result of the suit was that the Munsif decided in favour of the plaintiff and gave judgment for Rs. 250 by way of damages and also ordered the payment of costs. From this decision the defendant appealed to the Subordinate Judge. The Subordinate Judge affirmed all the findings of the Munsif on matters of fact, but the question as to the position of the Secy. of State in the argument on behalf of the defendant seams by this time to have shifted.

(3.) This time he did not urge that the Secy. of State should be made a party but he urged that the Secy. of State ought to have received notice of the suit. This argument is as incomprehensible as was the argument raised before the Munsif and was rightly rejected by the Subordinate Judge who affirmed the judgment of the Munsif. The defendant then came to this Court on second appeal. The appeal before the Subordinate Judge was heard on 11 March 1931 and the memorandum of appeal to this Court is dated 13 April 1931. The memorandum of appeal sets forth as ground 4: For that the Court of appeal below should have held that the appellant's report having been made in his official capacity, the suit for damages could not be without a notice to the Secy. of State for India and has erred in law in holding otherwise.