WARYAM SINGH Vs. SUKHDEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of the judgment and decree of the learned additional District Judge Sri Ganganagar dated 29-8-68 dismissing his suit for damages for malicious prosecution for offences under Section 42 read with Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Motor vehicles Taxation Act. While dismissing the suit the trial court awarded costs of the litigation as also compensatory costs to the tune of Rupees 200/- to each of the two defendants.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Waryam Singh was an agriculturist who had his agricultural lands in his personal cultivation in Chak No. 26h, Tehsil Karanpur. Waryam Singh also resided there. His case was that lie cultivates his field with the help of a tractor and he had his own tractor No. RJK 4507 to which a trailer or trolley was attached. On 13-8-64 the plaintiff had sent his tractor to Karanpur with its driver for bringing diesel oil as also some Pucka bricks in connection with the construction of his house as well as cattle sheds situated at Chak No. 26-H. While the tractor was on its way back, defendant No. 1 Shri Sukhdeo Prasad, who was at that time a Transport sub-Inspector, seized it. In spite of the repeated requests of the driver, Shri sukhdeo Prasad did not release the tractor. According to the plaintiff, Shri sukhdeo Prasad was duly informed that the material loaded in the trailer belonged to the plaintiff and it was being carried to Chak No. 26h to be used for agricultural purposes. The Sub-Inspector, however, did not heed the request of the driver and threatened him with a prosecution and at the same time demanded illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 300/. As the driver was not agreeable to pay the bribe, the plaintiff was challaned by defendant No. 1 in the Court of Sub-Divisional magistrate, Karanpur for offences under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation act and 42/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act The plaintiff averred that though he was convicted by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate having been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act and Rs. 50/- for the offence under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, on appeal he was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. The plaintiff maintained that his prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause for the same. The suit was filed both against Shri Sukhdeo Prasad, the Transport Sub-Inspector as well as the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 10000/- as general damages and Rs. 1000/- as special damages on account of the expenses incurred by him in defending himself in the criminal case upto the stage of appeal and also on, account of certain sundry items.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the two defendants. It was denied that the Sub-Inspector had demanded any bribe or that there was any malice on the part of sukhdeo Prasad in seizing the tractor and the trolley or in launching the prosecution against the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the driver of the plaintiff had not stated that the bricks were being taken for the construction of the plaintiffs house or the cattle sheds.