NARSINGHLAL Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by order dated 4-4-1984, at the time of admission of the appeal:-

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred to above are that defendant Narsinghlal was Food Inspector at Kukshi. On 7-11-1977 he went to the kirana shop of the plaintiff Ashok Kumar. Gud was being sold in this shop. The Food Inspector took sample of Gud and prepared a panchnama. According to the Food Inspector, this panchnama was torn by the plaintiff and he prevented the Food Inspector from taking further action as required by law. The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the plaintiff in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kukshi. After trial, the plaintiff was acquitted of the charge under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short, 'the Act of 1954' ). A certified copy of the judgment dated 13-7-1978 of the Trial Magistrate is exhibited P-1. A perusal of this judgment reveals that the plaintiff was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution. The Trial Court held that the defendant himself destroyed the panchnama after taking the sample of Gud and lodged a false complaint against the plaintiff. It has also been held by the Trial Court that the plaintiff was a Journalist and he was publishing news against the defendant and for that reason he was actuated to prefer a false charge against the plaintiff. The prosecution was held to be without reasonable and probable cause. The argument raised on behalf of the defendant that he was protected under Section 22 of the Act of 1954, was negatived on the ground that the defendant did not act in good faith.