JAGDEO SAHU Vs. DWARKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under the Letters Patent from the decision of Shearer J. arises out of a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was brought by the local agent of the Burma Shell Co. at Dehri-on-Sone, against three defendants, of whom the first was the Chairman of Local Union Committee

(2.) On 1-3-1910, he forwarded to the Sub-divisional Magistrate Sasaram a petition which he had received from certain rate payers including defendants 2 and 3. In the petition it was stated that at the station Jagdeo Sahu, Babulal Kali Charan Sahu (Plaintiff's firm) had had got oil godowns at two places, and contiguous thereto were situated many houses of the public with tile and straw thatches and. there was also a liquor shop by the side of the oil godowns These were highly dangerous, and they requested that the oil godowns might be removed to a secluded place Defendant 1 sent on the petition with the following endorsement: Forwarded to the S.D.O. Sasaram, for favourable orders. I myself had been to the spot, and found that the keeping of kerosene godown on the place alleged is highly objectionable and dangerous for the public. It must be removed.

(3.) On receipt of this, the Sub-divisional Magistrate made a conditional order under Section 133, Criminal P.C., requiring the plaintiff to show cause, or to remove the kerosene oil godown. The plaintiff in answer to the notice appeared, and satisfied the Magistrate that, there was little or no danger of fire and that the al. legations against him were unjustified. The proceedings were then dropped. Thereupon the present suit was instituted. At the trial evidence Was adduced to show that the plaintiff was one of those who had made complaints against the manner in which defendant 1 had been discharging his duties as Chairman of the Union Committee The Courts of fact came to the conclusion that defendant 1 in making the endorsement he did and forwarding it was actuated by malice, with improper motive, and not by any desire for the general welfare or the public good. They also found want of reasonable and probable cause for the institution of the proceedings, and held that the Chairman was responsible for their institution. In this view the plaintiff was given a decree against all three defendants, but only for a sum of Rs. 21-13-3 the expenses actually incurred by the plaintiff in showing cause against the notice Only defendant 1 appealed, and his appeal was dismissed-by the Subordinate Judge who heard it. Defendant 1 then came before Shearer J. in second appeal and that learned Judge has dismissed the suit with costs throughout as against defendant 1. Hence this Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiff.