1956 (12) TMI 54 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Malicious prosecution claims.
2. Entrustment and misappropriation of funds.
3. Reasonable and probable cause for prosecution.
4. Malice in prosecution.
5. Damages awarded for malicious prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Malicious Prosecution Claims:
The appeals were connected to decrees and judgments from the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli in O. S. Nos. 113 of 1950 and 25 of 1951. Both cases involved claims for damages due to malicious prosecution. The plaintiffs, Ghani Sahib and Peria Mohammad Rowthar, sought compensation for being wrongfully prosecuted by the defendant, S.T. Sahib.

2. Entrustment and Misappropriation of Funds:
The facts revealed that S.T. Sahib, a substantial landlord, entrusted his agent, Hussain Rowther, with Rs. 9,000 to be paid to the Tiruvaduthurai Mutt and Kumarar Kovil. Hussain Rowther allegedly misappropriated the funds. The entrustment was witnessed by Risavu Muhammad Rowthar and Mian Rowthar, and Hussain Rowther traveled with the money to Tenkasi.

3. Reasonable and Probable Cause for Prosecution:
The High Court examined whether S.T. Sahib had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute Ghani Sahib and Peria Mohammad Rowthar. The essential elements for malicious prosecution include:
- Prosecution by the defendant.
- Favorable termination of the prosecution for the plaintiff.
- Prosecution without reasonable and probable cause.
- Prosecution actuated by malice.
- Special damage suffered by the plaintiff.

The evidence showed that S.T. Sahib had reasonable grounds to believe that Hussain Rowther misappropriated the funds and that Ghani Sahib instigated this misappropriation. The police investigation and subsequent legal advice supported the decision to prosecute. The court found that S.T. Sahib acted on credible information and had no reason to doubt the veracity of the claims against Ghani Sahib.

4. Malice in Prosecution:
The court analyzed whether S.T. Sahib was actuated by malice in prosecuting Ghani Sahib and Peria Mohammad Rowthar. Malice involves an improper motive, such as spite or ill will. The court concluded that there was no evidence of malice towards Ghani Sahib. The relationship between S.T. Sahib and Ghani Sahib had cooled, but there was no animosity or ill will at the time of the complaint. The complaint was based on credible information and not on mere suspicion or for collateral advantage.

However, in the case of Peria Mohammad Rowthar, the court found that the prosecution was based on mere suspicion and conjecture. There was no substantial evidence to support the claim that Peria Mohammad Rowthar instigated the misappropriation. The court concluded that S.T. Sahib was actuated by malice in this case, as the prosecution was reckless and lacked reasonable and probable cause.

5. Damages Awarded for Malicious Prosecution:
The Subordinate Judge awarded damages to the plaintiffs. Ghani Sahib was awarded Rs. 5,500, and Peria Mohammad Rowthar was awarded Rs. 650. The High Court set aside the award for Ghani Sahib, concluding that S.T. Sahib had reasonable and probable cause and was not actuated by malice. However, the award for Peria Mohammad Rowthar was upheld, as the prosecution against him was found to be malicious and without reasonable and probable cause.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the suit O. S. 113 of 1950 and allowed the appeal A. S. 240 of 1953, finding in favor of S.T. Sahib. Conversely, the court dismissed the appeal A. S. 908 of 1953, upholding the award of damages to Peria Mohammad Rowthar, as the prosecution against him was malicious and lacked reasonable and probable cause.