KESHO PARSHAD Vs. RAM KISHEN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed damages for malicious prosecution. It appears that some time in November 1908, the defendant, who deals in sugar at a place called Lukhiserai, sent & consignment of sugar to one Madho Ram at Agra. Madho Ram did not pay him for the sugar, and the defendant came to Agra, and finding the sugar in the shop belonging to the plaintiff s firm, he lodged a complaint against the plaintiff and Madho Ram alleging that he had been cheated by them. Madho Ram and the plaintiff were subsequently arrested on the charge made by the defendant and tried. After a somewhat protracted trial, they were both acquitted, the Court holding that, so far as the plaintiff was concerned, there was no case against him at all and that he had acted perfectly bona fide, and that, so far as Madho Ram was concerned, the matter was of a civil nature.

(2.) The account given by the plaintiff of the transaction, stated as shortly as possible, is as follows. He says that he had nothing whatever to do with the purchase of the sugar but that the sugar having been purchased by Madho Ram, the plaintiff, in the ordinary course of his business, took over consignment note, advanced money on the sugar and sold it in the ordinary course of his business in the shop. He admits that the defendant came to Agra to inquire about the sugar and the payment of its price; that he gave the defendant all the information that he could and that he showed him his books, told him the amount he had advanced to Madho Ram, and offered, if the defendant would give him a written order, not to pay any more money in respect of the sugar to Madho Ram.

(3.) The story told by the defendant differs very substantially. He alleges that the sugar was purchased verbally not by Madho Ram alone but by the plaintiff also who came to Lakhiserai with Madho Ram and ordered the sugar; that he understood that he was selling the sugar to these two persons; that when he came to Agra and searched in vain for the shop of Madho Ram, he discovered from the Railway authorities that delivery had been made to the firm of which the plaintiff Kesho Parshad is proprietor; that he went to the, shop, saw Kesho Parshad and Madho Ram, who at once made themselves scarce; that one Murlidhar, father of the plaintiff, pretended to know nothing about the sugar and ordered him out of the shop; that thereupon he returned to Lakhiserai and, after about a week s interval, lodged a complaint. He contends that, under these circumstances, he had reasonable and probable cause to institute the criminal complaint against Kesho Parshad and Madho Ram.