STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAM JANAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have filed this First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.1995 passed by Sri Raj Kishore Lal, the learned Subordinate Judge 1st, Gaya in Money Suit No. 25 of 1990 decreeing the plaintiff"s Money Suit in part.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the aforesaid Money Suit claiming Rs.1,79,222.50 alleging that he was appointed as Matric Trained Assistant Teacher by the District Superintendent of Education in the pay scale of Rs.230-5-280-E.B.-6-340 and joined U.P. School, Adai, Konch, District Gaya on 25.07.1973. He was getting his salary till 1974. In 1974, his Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. enemies gave false information that the plaintiff"s real name is Bhagwan Singh and in fact, the plaintiff"s brother is Ram Janam Singh, who is actually appointed as Assistant Teacher but because he is invalid, the plaintiff impersonating him as Ram Janam Singh and working as Assistant Teacher. THEreafter on 8.9.1976, he was arrested from the office of District Superintendent of Education without asking any explanation or show cause. According to the plaintiff, the arrest was illegal and unjustified.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the judgment only on the finding of malicious prosecution and awarding Rs.9,000 to the plaintiff. THE learned counsel submitted that in this case it cannot be said that the plaintiff was prosecuted maliciously because there was a public petition which has been admitted by the plaintiff himself in the plaint and the said petition discloses a cognizable offence. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the department should first enquire about the correctness or otherwise of the fact because the department has no investigating agency and moreover, the departmental proceeding is a separate thing and criminal proceeding is a separate thing. THE learned counsel further submitted that had it been a false and malicious prosecution, then, in such circumstances, the police after investigation could not have filed charge sheet and the Court also did not discharge him at the time of framing charge. Charge was framed because there were materials available on the record for framing charge. THE learned counsel further submitted that only because the plaintiff has been acquitted, it cannot be presumed that the prosecution was a malicious prosecution and moreover, the delay was not caused because of the appellants. THE learned counsel further submitted that if on the ground that the accused has been acquitted it is presumed that it was a malicious prosecution then, in almost more than 50% cases in which, the accused are acquitted because of non-production of evidences, the State will have to face suit for realization of cost of litigation. THE learned counsel on these grounds submitted that the impugned judgment so far it relates to finding of malicious prosecution and awarding of Rs.9,000 is concerned is liable to be set aside. It may be reiterated here that no other grounds has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.