MUNICIPALITY OF AHMEDABAD Vs. PANUBHAI LALJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ahmedabad Municipality served the plaintiff with a notice under Sections 96 (5) and 91 (4), (13), of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, calling upon him to remove certain building work done by him without the necessary sanction. As the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice, the Municipality prosecuted him under Section 155 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The plaintiff was acquitted of the charge brought against him. Thereupon, the plaintiff brought the present suit to recover Rs. 725 from the defendant for damages for malicious prosecution. The trial Court dismissed the suit; but, in appeal, the learned Assistant Judge awarded the claim. It is against the decree of the lower appellate Court that the present appeal is made.

(2.) Two points are taken before me by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant. The first is, that an action for false and malicious prosecution cannot lie in the case of a prosecution under the Municipal Act. In support of this contention the learned advocate relies on Wiffen V/s. Bailey and Romford Urban Council [1915] 1 K.B. 600. That was a case of a prosecution under Section 95 of the Public Health Act, 1875, and all that was decided there was that such a complaint is not a proceeding necessarily and naturally involving damage to the fair name of the person prosecuted, or putting him in peril of losing his liberty, sufficient to support an action by him for malicious prosecution. Apart from that, it was pointed out by Lord Justice Buckley in his judgment that " There are three sorts of damage, any one of which is sufficient to support this action. First, damage to a man's fame, as if the matter whereof he is accused be scandalous. Secondly, damage to his person, as where a man is put in danger to lose his life, limb or liberty. Thirdly, damage to his property, as where he is forced to expend money in necessary charges to acquit himself of the crime of which he is accused". Then the learned Lord Justice dealt with the last ground and with regard to it observed : "The last is not in question in this case. There is no pecuniary damage." He then dealt with the first two grounds and held that the action was not maintainable. Lord Justice Phillimore explains in his judgment what is meant by damage to a man's property in these words : "And thereby damage to a man's property as where he is forced to expend his money in necessary charges to acquit himself of the crime of which he is accused. This last head of damage was held to apply in Savile V/s. Roberts (1698) 1 Ld. Raym. 374, and the action was held to be maintainable." It may be stated that the leading case on the point is Savile V/s. Roberts which first laid down the three canons which have been accepted ever since.

(3.) In the present suit, the action was inter alia based on damage to property and the plaintiff was compelled to incur expenses in order to defend himself against the charge brought by the Municipality against him, and the case relied upon is not of much use to the appellant.