Padma Khastgir, J. - (1.) This suit has been filed by Chouthmal Agarwalla against (1) Halar Salt and Chemical Works, (2) Harjivandas Vithaldas, (3) Jamnadass Madhawji (4) Gordhandass Madhawji Thakkar, (5) Patalia Saratchandra Jethalal and (6) Haridas Dwarkadas for a decree for Rs. 1,00.000, in the alternative an enquiry in respect thereof, costs, injunction and other reliefs on 27th April 1959.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he carried on 'business as an importer and exporter in salt, iron and general merchandise, order suppliers in Calcutta for a long time and has good reputation. The plaintiff carried on the said business as a partner of Sri Bajrang Trading and Supply Company at No. 22, Bartala Street, Calcutta.
(3.) The defendant No. 1 is a firm, inter alia, carrying on business in salt at No. 1, Amratala Lane, Calcutta and the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 are partners. The defendant No. 6 is the Branch Manager of the defendant No. 1. On 26th November 1957 the defendant No. 6 under the instruction and/or advice, directions and/ or orders of his masters being defendants Nos. 2 to 5 maliciously without reasonable and probable cause preferred in the Court of the Additional Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta a complaint against the plaintiff under Ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby caused the said Court to issue process against the plaintiff. The defendants Nos. 2 to 5 caused the proceedings to be initiated through the defendant No. 1 and unequivocally ratified and/or admitted the said acts of the defendant No. 6. The plaintiff had to appear before the said court on various days between 27th November 1957 till 25th September 1958 and had to stand in the prisoners' dock as an accused during the trial in the said court along with other criminals. On 25th September 1958 the plaintiff was acquitted under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that there was no mens rea on the part of the accused. It is further the case of the plaintiff that by reason of the aforesaid malicious prosecution and malicious abuse of the process of the Court the plaintiff has been injured in his credit and business reputation and suffered from mental agony (SIC) pain. The plaintiff was compelled to appear in the court from time to time and was thereby prevented from transacting his business for a long time. The plaintiff has examined himself and also examined two other witnesses being plaintiff's witnesses Nos. 2 and 3 to prove that as a result of the said malicious prosecution the plaintiff lost credit and/or confidence of other customers and suppliers and considering him to be a bad man and/or criminal they ceased to do any business with the plaintiff on credit. The plaintiff in paragraph 11 has claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the damages that he is alleged to have suffered. A written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants denying the claim of the plaintiff and trying to justify their own conduct. The plaintiff in his examination-in-chief stated there were various dealings and transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant for a long time. In the course of such transaction on 9th October 1957 the plaintiff gave 4 cheques in favour of the defendant No. 1. Out of 4 cheques 2 were passed by the bankers for payment and subsequently as the plaintiff found that salt supplied by the defendant No. 1 was short, as such he wrote to the banker stopping the payment in respect of other 2 cheques. Those 2 cheques were for the sums of Rs. 4,537.50 and also for Rs. 3,000. At that time the plaintiff had with the defendant a total sum of Rs. 3,000 in deposit. The defendant No. 1 was holding that sum of Rs. 3,000 to the credit of the plaintiff as a deposit. At the time when the plaintiff issued the said 2 cheques, the plaintiff had an overdraft facility with the bank for a sum of Rs. 70,000. On the day when the plaintiff issued notice stopping payment of the said two cheques the plaintiff had also overdraft facilities with the bank to the tune of Rs. 70,000. That instruction for stoppage of payment was given by the plaintiff on a bona fide grond as the goods supplied by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff was short in supply. As such, according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to stop payment for the said cheques. The defendant No. 6 under the instruction of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 wrongfully filed the criminal complaint in respect of the said 2 cheques, which were not paid by the hankers. The plaintiff has proved the complaint filed before the Criminal Court which was signed by the defendant No. 16. The said criminal trial lasted for 6 months and the plaintiff had to attend court for more than 20 times. During has visit to the court the plaintiff had to remain there from 11 o'clock in the morning upto 4 o'clock. The plaintiff stated that he had to engage lawyer for 22 days and in fact had to pay Rs. 1,580 to the said lawyer. Although he says that he had receipt for payment to the lawyer he had not been able to find them. Ultimately the plaintiff was acquitted of both the charges on 25th September 1958. He submits that the defendants had no reason whatsoever to start the said criminal proceeding against the plaintiff. The plaintiff deposed that the defendants have started criminal case with the oblique motive and not for any reasonable and probable cause as he has stopped payment of the cheques. The defendant wanted to injure the prestige of the plaintiff in the business community and in the trade. The plaintiff states that he was A regular assessee under the Income-tax Act and he has proved a number of orders paid into the Income-tax Department for the assessment years 1957-60. He has also proved the balance sheet of the fund Bajrang Trading and Supply Company to show that the plaintiffs name appeared under the column of the capital account and also proved the figures lying to its credit as mentioned in the different balance sheets proved by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has given the name of different parties with whom he had business in salt and also proved various bills for large sums of money which had been paid to different parties during the relevant period. Apart from the credit facilities given by Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 70,000 the plaintiff enjoyed other credit facilities in the market. The plaintiff's case is that because of the institution of the criminal case, his prestige was lowered and as a result the business community refused to give him goods on credit. Amongst the parties, who refused credit, the plaintiff mentioned the names of Sri Lakshmi Salt Works Ltd., Imperial Iron and Steel Works, etc. He also proved the different letters written by the parties refusing to give the plaintiff any credit facility because of the said criminal proceedings. The plaintiff examined on his behalf Sri Hrishikesh Chakraborty of Lakshmi Salt Works to prove the letter written by them also to prove that people knew about the said prosecution of the plaintiff as a result whereof the Director of the said company decided not to give any salt to the plaintiff, save and except strictly on cash terms. The plaintiff also examined one Satyanarayan Saraf of S.L. Gupta Pvt. Ltd. to prove that because of the criminal proceedings taken against the plaintiff they stopped supplying goods to the plaintiff save and except on cash terms and also proved the letter dated 4th May 1958 written by them to the plaintiff.;