GARIKIPATI RAMAYYA Vs. ARAZA BIKSHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O. S No 61 of 1971 Sub-Court. Masulipatam is the appellant.

(2.) The respondents filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of RS. 10,000.00 as general and special damages for malicious arrest, wrongful confinement and false imprisonment on the following allegations.

(3.) The plaintiffs are ryots of Penumalli village. The defendants son Purushottam is the Sarpanch of the village and the plaintiffs belonged to the opposition party of the Gram Panchayat. The defendant owns a rice mill named Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill which is Installed in a thatched shed. The said mill caught fire and was burnt on the 10/07/1970 at about 1-00 p.m. On 11-7-1970 the defendant brought the Sub inspector and two constables and got the plaintiffs and two others arrested and taken hand-cuffed to Pedana Police Station and confined in the station lock up The defendant gave a report written by his son alleging that he saw the plaintiff in his mill promises instigating and aiding one Adapa Biksham to set fire to the mill. The plaintiffs were kept in the police Station lock up till 12-7-1970, At 4-00 PM on that day they were produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bandar and got remanded to the judicial custody in Sub Jail Bandar. The plaintiffs moved for bail, but the defendant opposed the applicator and the bail was refused They were however released on bail on 21-7-1970 by orders of the Sessions Judge Krishna. Ultimately a charge sheet was laid only against Adapa Biksham an the plaintiffs were discharged and the bail bonds canceled. Thus the defendants caused the arrest and wrongful confinement and imprisonment maliciously and without any lawful excuse or justification. By reason thereof the daintifts suffered disgrace humiliation, physical discomfort and mental suffering The plaintiffs estimated me general damages for loss of reputation etc., at RS. 4,750.00 for each of !he plaintiffs. Besides the. the plaintiffs suffered damage by loss of produce from the land due to delayed transplantation Is they were prevented from carrying on their agricultural operations due to their imprisonment The plaintiffs claimed RS. 500.00 under this head, In all they claimed total damages of RS. 10.000.00.