G BHEEM RAO Vs. JAYAM LASKHMIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is against the judgment passed in first appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for damages on the ground that the criminal complaint filed against him by the petitioner herein was with malice. The plaint allegations in short, are.

(2.) The defendant had given a false complaint on 27th March, 1971, to the police stating that the plaintiff had illegally managed to get the cow released from the cattle pound and thereby committed theft of the same. The police referred the complaint after due investigation as there was no evidence. Inspite of the same, due to illfeelings between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant, who is the Surpanch of the Gram Panchayat, actuated by illwill and malice, filed a private complaint making false allegations under section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and under section 379, Indian Penal Code. The same was taken on file as C. C. No. 48 of 1971, which ended in acquittal. The defendant-revisionist herein nevertheless persisted and took the matter in appeal to the High Court, wherein also it resulted in dismissal on 15th November, 1972. The said prosecution was launched by the defendant without any reasonable or probable cause and solely motivated by malice on account of the previous enmity between them. So, the plaintiff incurred expenditure in conducting the case in a sum of Rs. 535 and therefore, the suit for payment of the said amount as compensation for malicious prosecution.

(3.) The defence is that he acted bona fide in filing the complaint in bis official capacity. As the police slept over the matter and referred the same without proper enquiry, he had to file a private complaint. However, the first Court on the basis of the evidence let in, held that the defendant is personally liable for the acts and awarded damages. On appeal, a further contention also was raised that the suit was barred by limitation as it was not filed within six months under section 144 of the Gram Panchayat Act. The appellate Coart rejected the case both on merits as well as on the point of liautation, holding that the suit is filed against the defendant in two capacities, as in para. 3 of the plaint it is said to be clearly stated that he was being sued as Surpanch of the Gram Panchayat as well as in his individual capacity. That apart, the appellate Court also held that the section protects only acts done or purporting to be done under the powers conferred on an executive authority, but it does not save the colourable-exercise of the power with mala fide intention. It also does not protect acts done not in discharge of the duties. Hence this Revision.