(1.) This first appeal arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution in which the respondent Khunnu obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 150 as damages against the appellant Pannar. The appellant made a complaint on June 20, 1932, that Khunnu had thrown some acid upon him at about 7 o clock that morning. He had already made a report to the Police at 8 o clock and had shown his injuries to the head constable. Later in the day he went to a doctor, who examined him and gave him a certificate. It appears that he had one burn on the cheek and another on the chest and that damage had been caused to his cloths and papers.
(2.) A question has been raised whether the doctor's evidence is admissible. He could not be found at the time when the civil suit was in progress, although he had given evidence in the Criminal Court. His previous evidence and report were taken into evidence. We do not think that it is very necessary for us to go into the question of the admissibility of this evidence because the point is not of great importance. There is the Police evidence in any case that the man had the injuries.
(3.) The criminal case Was tried by a Bench of Magistrates who acquitted the respondent and gave him compensation on the ground that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious. Against the order granting compensation there was an appeal to the District Magistrate who set the order aside. Eventually the respondent filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal. There is no doubt that the complaint was made and that the respondent was acquitted. The only questions, therefore, which have to be decided are whether the complaint was made without reasonable and propable cause and whether the appellant was actuated by malice.