SUDARSHAN KAR Vs. INDRA LAL SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the defendant No. 1 arose out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed by the original court as well as by the first appellate court.

(2.) Considering the facts and the questions of law involved in the appeal, a learned single Judge of this Court referred this appeal on 14.5.86 for decision by a Division Bench and that is how we have heard this matter.

(3.) The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are these: (1) the appellant, who was the Investigating Officer in the criminal case, could not be called prosecutor inasmuch as be carried out investigation in normal course on the basis of First Information Report and other information gathered from witnesses examined by him, (2) the appellant performed sovereign duty in the matter of investigation and as such, he is immune from malicious prosecution, (3) there was probable and reasonable cause for the prosecution of the plaintiff respondent and as such the appellant cannot be held to be responsible for damage, and (4) there was no malice in the prosecution of the criminal case.