1. We think the District Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the falsity of the charge brought against him. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff for the purpose of proving the falsity of the charge consisted of (a) the order of the Magistrate dismissing the charge under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (b) the oral testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The District; Munsif, however, appears to have placed no reliance on the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and to have relied entirely on the order of dismissal as establishing the falsity of the charge. In this he was wrong--see the judgment of the Judicial Committee in Baboo Gunnesh Dutt Singh v. Mugneeram Chowdhry 11 B.L.R. 321. With regard to proving the falsity of the charge the law is thus laid down by Lord Bowen in Abrath v. North Eastern Railway Co. L.R. 11 Q.B.D. 440: 'In an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff has to prove, first, that he was innocent, and that his innocence was pronounced by the tribunal before which the accusation was made.'
2. On the evidence, we do not think the plaintiff proved that he was innocent. We also think there was no evidence to warrant a finding that the defendant had acted without reasonable or probable cause or that his proceedings against the plaintiff were instituted from an indirect and improper motive and not in furtherance of justice.
3. The second appeal must be dismissed with costs.