KARAN SINGH Vs. NANDKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JACKSON , A.J.C. 1. The original plaintiffs in the suit out of which his appeal arises were Motichand, a 'pleader of Bilaspur, and his brother, Randhir Sahai. Motichand died during the course of the trial and his sons were brought on the record in his place. Motichand and Randhir Sahai were prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 380 and Section 420, I.P.C., and were discharged. The prosecution originated in a report made to the police by Mt. Jima Bai, defendant 1, and the investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector Karan Singh, defendant 2. After Motichand and Randhir Sahai had been discharged they filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for damages for malicious prosecution. As regards Karan Singh, the present appellant, the suit was founded on the allegation that he had conspired with Mt. Jima Bai to prosecute the plaintiffs on charges of theft and cheating knowing them to be false, and that in the course of the investigation he maliciously closed Randhir Sahai's shop and kept it closed during the criminal proceedings, thereby causing loss to Randhir Sahai, The lower Court has passed a decree for Rs. 3,556-4-5 against Jima Bai as damages for malicious prosecution and for Rs, 3,838-8-9 against Karan Singh on the ground that he is liable for damages because of his gross negligence in dealing with Randhir Sahai's shop.

(2.) IN appeal it is contended on behalf of Karan Singh that as he has been found to have acted in good faith, he has been wrongly found liable to pay damages. The question of his good faith has again been raised on behalf of the respondents, out I entirely agree with the reasons given by the lower Court for finding that he did act in good faith, Certain alleged-irregularities in his procedure, not mentioned by the lower Court, have been placed before me, but some of them are not irregularities at all, and none of them leads me to suspect that Karan Singh acted otherwise than in good faith that, however, does not dispose of the case against him.

(3.) THE question, then, is whether he can be bold responsible for the loss resulting to Randhir Sahai from the shop having been kept closed for the period during which the criminal trials proceeded. The shop was closed on 19th September 1918, and the chalan under Section 420, I.P.C., was presented on 8th October 1918, with the cbalan the seizure memorandum was submitted to the Court, and it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the shop then came into the possession of the Court, that it was open to the plaintiffs to move the Court to release the shop, which they failed to do and that therefore no responsibility rests on Karan Singh. The seizure memorandum is not on the record, but it is clear from the deposition of Karan Singh (2 D.W. 3) that it was filed with the Chalan. It was produced in order to refresh his memory as to the person to whom the key of the shop was given when it was closed. The memorandum should be on the record, but the reason why it is not appears to be that at the stage of pleadings the parties had not in mind Karan Singh's possible liability on the ground of negligence. It is true that in para, 24 of the plaint it is alleged that Karan Singh kept the shop closed under his charge, without placing it in the custody of the Court or taking care to preserve the goods. The reply in para. 7 of Karan Singh's written statement is that the seizure of the shop was made under the Criminal Procedure Code in accordance with the law and was duly reported to the District Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate concerned. Nothing further was pleaded about the Sub-Inspector's failure to place the shop under the control of the Court, but in para. 4 of the plaintiffs' written reply, it is said that: the arrest and closing of the shop and consequent damages were the results of malicious prosecution,