SACHINDRA NATH BHANJA CHOWDHURY Vs. LABANGALATA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in conspiracy with the defendant No. 4, set up the defendant No. 3 to lodge a false complaint before the Noapara Police Station to the effect that on May 11, 1963 he (the plaintiff) had shown his private parts and had also abused her (the defendant No. 3) in filthy language. On the basis of the said complaint a criminal proceeding was instituted which ultimately resulted in his acquittal. Due to the institution of the prosecution, the plaintiff was suspended from his service with the Ichapore Rifle Factory and during the period of suspension he was allowed to draw only subsistence allowance at Rs. 102-50 p. per month. That apart, the plaintiff had to lose over-time allowance pnd such loss was tentatively put at Rs. 200/-. The plaintiff had to defend himself by engaging a lawyer and on that account also he had to incur expenses to the extent of Rs. 200/-. In all, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- from the defendants as damages.

(3.) The defendants filed separate written statements in support of their respective defence. The defendant No. 1 stated that he did not know about the complaint lodged by the defendant No. 3 with the Police. Later on however he was examined by the Investigating Officer and was summoned during trial to depose as a witness for the prosecution and deposed what he saw and knew. The defendant No. 2, in his written statement, stated that he did not know anything about the incident. He emphatically denied that he ever entered into any conspiracy with defendant No. 3 or anybody to falsely implicate the plaintiff. The defendant No. 3 stated that there was reasonable and probable cause for launching the prosecution against the plaintiff and that the same was not malicious. She denied that the plaintiff suffered any loss and/or that he was entitled to get any compensation. In his written statement the defendant No. 4 stated that at the request of the defendant No. 3 he accompanied her to the Police Station when the defendant No. 3 lodged the first information report with the Police. The allegations of conspiracy were emphatically denied by him.