PENDEKANTI SUBBARAYUDU Vs. BYSANI VENKATANARASAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of appeals, the short point that falls for determination is whether the defendant appellant prosecuted the respondents maliciously and without probable and reasonable cause. Both the Courts on the evidence have held that the defendant-appellant prosecuted the plaintiff-respondents without any reasonable or probable cause.

(2.) Shri Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant conceded that the conclusions of both the Courts on the evidence is correct, but contended that the entire approach by the Courts below is wrong inasmuch as they placed the burden on the defendant-appellant when as a matter of fact the burden is always on the plaintiff in an action for malicious prosecution to prove that the defendant had no reasonable or probable cause for the prosecution. I do not find any force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) It is no doubt true that ordinarily the onus of establishing that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution lies on the plaintiff; but where the accusation against the plaintiff was in respect of an offence which the defendant claimed to have seen him commit, and the trial ends in an acquittal on the merits, the presumption will be, not only that the plaintiff was innocent, but also that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the accusation I am supported in this view by the case of Taharat Karim v. Abdul Khaliq, AIR 1938 Pat 529. An identical question had come up before the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sah Chaturbhuj v. Sah Mauji Ram, AIR 1936 All 537 where it has been held as follows: