RAMESH CHANDRA BASU MAJUMDAR Vs. BROJENDRA NATH PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on behalf of the defendant in a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff's allegation is that he acted as the defendant's pleader in Money Execution Case No. 101 of 1942 and withdrew certain gums of money from Court and paid to the defendant his share of the moneys so withdrawn, oa a receipt given by the defendant. The defendant however lodged a complaint before the Magistrate at Serampore alleging that the plaintiff and two other persons had forged a vakalatnama, and on the strength of the forged vakalatnama had withdrawn moneys from Court and had misappropriated the same. The Magistrate thereupon took cognizance of the matter and sent the matter for enquiry to the munsif at Serampore. The munsif issued a notice on the plaintiff, and after an enquiry made by him, submitted a report. On perusal of the report, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal P. C. The plaintiff claimed damages for a sum of Rs. 503-11.6 for loss of reputation and expenses incurred by the plaintiff in defending the criminal proceedings started by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that there was no reasonable and probable cause for initiation of the criminal proceedings, and that these proceedings were actuated by malice. The defence was a denial of the material allegations made in the plaint. It was stated that there was no malice or want of reasonable and probable cause. The defendant alleged that he had a bona fide belief that he had not been paid his proper share in the money withdrawn is the aforesaid money execution case; before initiating the proceedings before the Magistrate, he had sent a pleader's letter to the plaintiff enquiring as to who was responsible for the forged vakalatnama and withdrawing moneys and not paying him his proper share.

(2.) The trial Court found that there was prosecution of the plaintiff, that there was want of reasonable and probable cause for filing the complaint before the Magistrate; that these proceedings were actuated by malice; and that the plaintiff was a leading practitioner and had suffered loss in reputation and had incurred certain costs. The trial Court, therefore, passed a decree for Rs. 503-11-6 with full costs.

(3.) An appeal was taken by the defendant. The lower appellate Court has varied the decree of the trial Court by reducing the amount decreed, by Rs. 200. The lower appellate Court has maintained the decree of costs passed by the trial Court; it has directed that the parties should bear their costs in the appellate Court. Against the decision of the lower appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this appeal.