Skip to content


Bishun Sarup Vs. Bindraban - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All531; 73Ind.Cas.446
AppellantBishun Sarup
RespondentBindraban
Excerpt:
malicious prosecution - charge absolutely false-probable and reasonable cause--further evidence, whether necessary. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......theft brought by him against bindraban. prom the evidence on the record which has been believed by the lower appellate court it is quite clear that the charge of theft brought against bindraban was absolutely without foundation. in view of that finding it is not open to the defendant-appellant to contend that there should have been further evidence directly going to show that there was no probable and reasonable cause for him to charge bindraban with theft. if the charge was absolutely baseless, it is legitimate to infer that the defendant-appellant had no reasonable and probable cause for making the charge. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs including fees in this court on the higher scale if any.3. there are cross-objections by the plaintiff-respondent with regard to the.....
Judgment:

Rafique, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Bindraban for the recovery of damages for malicious prosecution. It appears that Bindraban had a decree against the defendant-appellant which he proceeded to execute. The amin of the Court went to the house of the judgment-debtor and attached some articles. The defendant-appellant was away from home at the time and on his return he filed a criminal complaint of theft against Bindraban charging the latter with haying stolen a ring set with precious stones and a pair of silver anklets. Bindraban was tried for theft and acquitted. Thereupon, he filed the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for damages. The claim was resisted on various pleas. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim. On appeal the decree of the first Court was set aside and the appeal of Bindraban was allowed.

2. In second appeal the defendant-appellant contends that the burden of proof was cast wrongly on him and that there should have been positive evidence to the effect that he had no reasonable and probable cause for the charge of theft brought by him against Bindraban. Prom the evidence on the record which has been believed by the lower Appellate Court it is quite clear that the charge of theft brought against Bindraban was absolutely without foundation. In view of that finding it is not open to the defendant-appellant to contend that there should have been further evidence directly going to show that there was no probable and reasonable cause for him to charge Bindraban with theft. If the charge was absolutely baseless, it is legitimate to infer that the defendant-appellant had no reasonable and probable cause for making the charge. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale if any.

3. There are cross-objections by the plaintiff-respondent with regard to the amount of damages. I have examined the reasoning of the Court below with regard to the amount of damages carefully, and I am not prepared to differ from it. The cross-objections are also dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //