9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Liability of the Secretary of State for India in Council for alleged malicious prosecution by the defendant's servants and agents. - Reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. - Malice on the part of the prosecutor. - Civil liability of the Secretary of State for tortious acts committed by Police Officers in the performance of their duties. Analysis: The plaintiff, a Coachbuilder, sued the Secretary of State for India in Council for damages due to an alleged malicious prosecution by the defendant's servants and agents. The defendant raised preliminary objections, arguing that the suit should be against the specific Government officials responsible for the tort, and that the plaintiff's claim lacked specificity regarding the alleged wrongs. An agreement was reached to amend the plaint to specify the District Loco. Superintendent as the agent responsible for the prosecution. The Senior Subordinate Judge focused on two main issues: whether there was reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and whether malice was involved. The Judge found that while there was no reasonable cause for the prosecution, the District Loco. Superintendent was not directly responsible for it, as the Police authorities actually initiated the proceedings. The Judge noted that the defendant could not be held liable for the actions of the Police Officers as the plaintiff did not allege their involvement in the tortious act. The Judge acknowledged the plaintiff's naming of the District Loco. Superintendent due to lack of knowledge about the actual instigators behind the scenes. Consequently, the Judge directed each party to bear their own costs. The plaintiff appealed, seeking to amend the plaint to hold the Deputy Inspector General of Police accountable for directing the prosecution. The respondent contended that the prosecution was not malicious and that the Secretary of State was not liable for acts done by Government officials in performance of statutory powers. The Court held that malice in malicious prosecution includes improper motives, which were absent in this case. The Court found that the Deputy Inspector General acted in good faith based on the evidence presented to him. Moreover, the Secretary of State could not be held civilly liable for the actions of Police Officers carrying out statutory duties. Citing legal precedents, the Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the lower court's decision.
|
