Dwivedi, J. - (1.) THE appellant Ganga Din has filed this special appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a Second Appeal with his leave.
(2.) THE plaintiff Krishna Dutt alias Ram Dutt, instituted a suit for damages for his malicious prosecution by the appel lant and certain other persons. The trial Court dismissed the suit as against other persons but granted a decree for Rs. 500/-against the appellant. The decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the lower ap pellate Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the second appeal of the appel lant. Facts found by the lower courts are these. The plaintiff is a Brahman. He was a zamindar of the village Shah-jahanpur in the district of Kanpur. The appellant is a Chamar. There was friction between the caste Hindus and the Hari-jans in the village. The appellant lodged a first information report at the police sta tion Bhognipur on September 21, 1948. The report was made for offences punish able under Sections 147 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, for the offence of rioting and dacoity. The appel lant alleged in the report that the plaintiff and several other persons had committed the said offences. Lukhbasi, Nandan, Jodha and other chamars were batai ten ants of the caste Hindus. To coerce the batai tenants to do "Begar", the caste Hindus decided to forcibly dispossess them from the land. On the date of occurrence Lukhbasi was removing the share of pro duce he got from the land- holder on a division of crop. The plaintiff and other persons arrived on the threshing floor and wanted to take away the crop. Other per sons reached there on the alarm of Sukhbasi. They remonstrated against the high handedness of the caste Hindus. There upon the rioters adopted a menacing atti tude. Due to fear the appellant ran away from the scene of occurrence. The rioters then went to the appellant's threshing-floor and removed away considerable crop. They beat those who offered resistance. On this information the investigating offi cer investigated the case against the appel lant and others, and challaned them to the court of the appropriate Magistrate. The Magistrate made an enquiry. The plaintiff was discharged by him. Others were com mitted to the court of Session for trial, after his discharge, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages for malicious prosecu tion.
(3.) THE lower courts have found that the appellant lodged the first informa tion report on account of malice. There was no reasonable and probable cause for filing the report against the plaintiff. The report, so far as it implicates the plain tiff, is false to the knowledge of the appellant. The plaintiff was not present at the time of the occurrence. On those find ings the lower courts passed a Decree for damages against the appellant.;