SHUNMUGHA UDAYAR ALIAS SHANMUGHA VADHIAR Vs. KANDASAMI ASARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lower Courts were wrong in relying on Narasinga Row v. Muthaya Pillai 26 M. 362 : 12 M.L.J. 389 for their conclusion that the defendant was not the prosecutor in the criminal case and hence not liable as such. See Periya Goundan v. Kuppa Goudan 52 Ind. Cas. 782 : 42 M. 880 : 37 M.L.J. 234 : 10 L.W. 235 : 26 M.L.T. 140 : (1919) M.W.N. 577.

(2.) But they have concurrently found that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. The District Munsif might have misdirected himself on the question of burden of proof as regards one of the points involved (namely, that plaintiff was innocent of the charge of being liable to be called upon to furnish security) but the Subordinate Judge points out that error of the Munsif, quoting Gopalakrishna Kudva v. Bangle Narayana Kamthy 45 Ind. Cas. 803 : 34 M.L.J. 517 : 23 M.L.T. 341 : 7 L.W. 604 : (1918) M.W.N. 454, and has considered the evidence from his own correct standpoint and concurred in the Munsif s finding.

(3.) We must accept the finding of the lower Appellate Court on this point. So accepting, we dismiss the second appeal with costs.