George Knox, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Dulam and others. Their allegation in the plaint is that the defendants merely through enmity without any reasonable cause made a report against them in bad faith and lodged a false complaint in the Criminal Court, charging them with theft and assault. The defendants admitted having made the report of theft and assault and further, that they prosecuted the plaintiff, but they urged that the charge brought by them was a true one. Both the Courts below have found that the report and the charge were false, that the defendants were actuated by malice in bringing them and granted the plaintiffs a decree for damages. The defendants come here is appeal and say that under the circumstances of the case, no suit for false prosecution lies. Moreover, they added that there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution which they started. The learned Counsel, who appeared for the appellants, supported his contention on these grounds, by reference to the case of Jadubar Singh v. Sheo Saran Singh 21 A. 26. In that case, from one point of view, the circumstances were very similar to those in this case, the Court before which the prosecution was instituted, having in both cases, convicted upon the charge laid before it. But the Court above, both in that case and in this, set aside the conviction of the Criminal Court of first instance. But there it seems to me the resemblance begins and ends. It is true that in the case of Jadubar Singh v. Sheo Saran Singh 21 A. 26 my brother Banerji, J., appears to have laid down that where a Magistrate believes in the truth of the complaint brought by any one, that alone is sufficient evidence of the existence or reasonable and probable cause. Later on in the judgment, he returns to the same paint and changes the words sufficient evidence of the existence of reasonable and probable cause' to 'strong evidence to show that a case was not brought without reasonable and probable cause.' What we have to see in cases of this kind is what is the conduct of the complainant before and after making the charge and was the charge false to his knowledge. When a person finds that an offence has been committed against him or his property, he may have either direct personal knowledge of the person who committed the offence or not having such direct and personal knowledge, he may from other causes draw an inference as to who the offenders were. In the latter case, when he thinks fit to put the law in motion, he should be careful to state that he acts upon suspicion which he considers justified on such and such grounds. In the present case, the defendants, here appellants, stated that they had seen the robbery committed by the plaintiffs. This is what the Court of first instance says. I cannot, however, find from the record any copy either of the complaint or of the first report, and I think it most important before I decide this appeal that those papers should be before me. I direct that the record in the case of King-Emperor v. Dulam decided by the Court of Session of Azamgarah on December 22, 1909, together with the Magistrate's record be sent for. Upon the arrival of the record, let the case be put up for hearing.