R CHINNATHAMBI Vs. K K PALANISAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiff is a responsible Government servant and working in the Commercial Tax Department and had put in 18 years of service. THE 1st defendant is the paternal uncle of the 2nd defendant and they are pangalis. One Ramakrishnan (since deceased), brother of the 1st defendant was the 1st defendant in O.S. No.473 of 1978 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Salem. After the death of Ramakrishnan, the defendants took up the cudgels against the said pangalis and gave false complaint and on the basis of which Sessions Case No.88 of 1981 was filed against him on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Salem. He had to face charges under Sec.307 of Indian Penal Code along with other accused. After full trial, he was acquitted by an order dated 4.9.1982. He was put to mental stress and there was loss of reputation also as he had faced false charges. THE defendants had no reasonable or probable cause to compel the plaintiff to face the false charge. THE defendants also gave evidence in the sessions case and their evidence was rejected. THEre was malice on the part of the defendants. THE plaintiff spent considerable amount to get anticipatory bail from this Court and also paid fees to the counsel and therefore, claimed a sum of Rs.20,000 by way of damages. Defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any damages. No false case was given against the plaintiff. It is true that the plaintiff was involved in a sessions case and ultimately after trial, he was acquitted; but it does not mean that a false case was put up against him out of malice or without any reasonable and proper cause. THE defendants also gave evidence in the sessions case. An occurrence took place on 3.8.1980 and therefore, the 1st defendant was forced to give a complaint against the plaintiff and others to Hasthampatti Police. In fact, the case was prosecuted by the State and not by the 1st defendant. THE suit is liable to be dismissed. THE trial Court framed 2 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. THE trial Court partly decreed the suit granting a sum of Rs.5,000 by way of damages with interest at 9% per annum and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S. No.48 of 1986 and the aggrieved plaintiff preferred A.S. No.121 of 1986 relating to the disallowed portion of the damages and both the appeals were heard together by the learned District Judge, Salem and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed A.S. No.48 of 1986 in part and modified the decree for a sum of Rs.5,000 with subsequent interest and pro-cost against the 1st defendant only and dismissed the suit claim against the 2nd defendant and also dismissed A.S. No.121 of 1986. Aggrieved against this, the defendants have come forward with the present second appeal and the plaintiff also filed cross-objection.

(3.) IT is admitted that a complaint was given by the 1st defendant against the plaintiff and ultimately, the plaintiff was acquitted. Under Sec.43 of the Evidence Act, the judgment of the criminal Court can be used only to establish the fact that an acquittal has taken place as a fact in issue in the subsequent civil suit. The Civil Court cannot take into consideration the grounds upon which the acquittal was based. IT lies upon the Civil Court itself to undertake an entirely independent enquiry before satisfying itself of the absence of reasonable and probable cause. The ingredients to be satisfied in a case of malicious prosecution are: (1) the defendant must have prosecuted the plaintiff; (2) the prosecution must have ended in favour of the plaintiff; (3) The defendant must have prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause; (4) the defendant in prosecuting must have actuated by malice, and (5) the plaintiff, when the proceedings were other than criminal proceedings, must have suffered special damages.