BOYINI KANGANNA Vs. PEDINI RAMLINGAM SUBUDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by. defendant 1 in an action for damages for malicious prosecution The appellant is a private individual, but there was also a defendant 2 impleaded who was the village Munsif and as such a "public officer" within the meaning of Section 80, Civil P.C. It was not alleged that any notice under Section 80 had been served upon defendant 2, nor did the plaint contain the required averment.

(2.) The case stated in the plaint was that defendant 1 Was a mere tool in the hands of defendant 2, the village Munsif, who was an enemy of the plaintiff, and that both the defendants actuated by malice concocted a false story and submitted a false report to the police and the Magistrate of the commission of a criminal offence by the plaintiff for which he was put on trial and acquitted.

(3.) The findings, however, which have been arrived at by both the Courts of fact are that the proceedings against the plaintiff were instituted maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause by defendant 1 alone who made a false report to defendant 2, and the latter did not act beyond what he was authorised to do under the law.