Abdur Rahman, J.
1. This is a hatch of three appeals. The suits which gave rise to these appeals were for damages for wrongful arrest alleged to have been made by the defendants who are police officers that is to say, servants of the Crown. The defendants alleged that they had arrested the plaintiffs in the discharge of their duties. The lower appellate Court did not believe the evidence of the plaintiffs, believed the evidence of the defendants and dismissed the suits. It was of the opinion that the allegations made on behalf of the plaintiffs had not been substantiated by them. The plaintiffs appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the onus of proving want of bona fides was on the defendants but in this he was mistaken. When his attention was invited to Section 270, Sub-clause (2) of the Government of India Act he had to admit that in cases which fall within the ambit of that section the onus of proving want of bona fides would lie on the plaintiff and not on the servants of the Crown. It is true that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not very happily worded but there is no doubt as to what the lower appellate Court actually decided in the case. The lower appellate Court did not believe any of the plaintiffs' witnesses and was inclined to accept the statements made by the defendants. The conclusion on that basis was foregone and the suit had to be dismissed.
3. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee in the three cases in one set, rest separate. Leave is refused.