STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution was partly decreed to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- against the appellant and respondent No. 2.

(2.) Plaintiff Des Raj filed the instant suit against the State of Punjab and the respondent No. 2 Tarsem Lal Manju and respondent No. 3-AS1 Gurdial Singh for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution launched against him. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was doing the business in foodgrains and was having a very good reputation in the market. Shri Tarsem Lal Manju (respondent No. 2) was Inspector in the Civil Supplies Department, Ludhiana. He was having ill-will against the plaintiff as he did not supply him one bag of rice free of cost which was demanded by him. Due to that grudge, he falsely implicated the plaintiff in a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and the plaintiff was put under arrest. The aforesaid prosecution was launched against the plaintiff at the instance of Shri Tarsem Lal Manju on the basis of a false report made by him. The allegations against the plaintiff were that he had stocked the food articles at a place other than the certified godowns and second that he was in possession of excess rice than that shown in the stock register. On the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff was put to trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for an offence under Section 7 of the Act Ultimately, the plaintiff was honourably acquitted, vide judgment dated 29-3-1- 1968 by holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations levelled against the accused.The Chief Judicial Magistrate found that there was no justification for prosecuting the petitioner for the aforesaid two allegations. Both the allegations were found to be false. It was held that the place where the food articles were stored was duly notified to the Department by the plaintiff and the rice which were found in possession of the plaintiff were duly shown in the stock register

(3.) After his acquittal, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for recovery of damages for his malicious prosecution. The suit was resisted by the State of Punjab as well as the respondent-Tarsem Lal Manju. On behalf of the State, it was pleaded that State is not liable for the aots of respondent-Tarsem, Lal Manju. It was also pleaded that the prosecution launched against the plaintiff was not mala fide and if the plaintiff was acquitted, it did not give him a cause to file the suit for damages against the State.