ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1971, Sub Court, Masulipatnam is the appellant. The respondents filed the suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as general and special damages for malicious arrest, wrongful confinement and false imprisonment on the following allegations. The plaintiffs are ryots of Penumalli village. The defendant s son purushottam is the Sarpanch of the village and the plaintiffs belonged to the opposition party of the Gram Panchayat. The defendant owns a rice mill, named Sri Venkateswara Rice Mill which is installed in a thatched shed. The said mill caught fire and was burnt on the 10th July 1970 at about 1-00 p. m. On 11-7-1970 the defendant brought the Sub-Inspector and two constables and got the plaintiffs and two others arrested and taken handcuffed to Pedana Police Station and confined in the station lock up. The defendant gave a report written by his son alleging that he saw the plaintiff in his mill premises instigating and aiding one Adapa Biksham to set fire to the mill. The plaintiffs were kept in the police station lock up till 12-7-1970. At 4-00 p. m. on that day they were produced before the Judicial First Class magistrate, Bandar and got remanded to the Judicial custody in Sub-Jail, bandar. The plaintiffs moved for bail, but the defendant opposed the application and the bail was refused. They were however released on bail on 21-7-1970 by orders of the Sessions Judge, Krishna. Ultimately a charge sheet was Jaid only against Adapa Biksbam and the plaintiffs were discharged and the bail bonds cancelled. Thus the defendants caused the arrest and wrongful confinement and imprisonment maliciously and without any lawful excuse or justification. By reason thereof the plaintiffs suffered disgrace, humiliation, physical discomfort and mental suffering. The plaintiffs estimated the general damages for loss of reputation etc. at Rs. 4, 750/- for each of the plaintiffs. Besides this the plaintiffs suffered damage by loss of produce from the land due to delayed transplantation as they were prevented from carrying on their agricultural operations due to their imprison ment. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 500/- under this head. In all, they claimed total damages of Rs. l0,000/ -. The defendant stated in his written statement that after taking his food when he returned to his rice mill at about 1-00 he saw one Adapa Biksham setting fire to the engine shed of the mill and in a very short time the shed caught fire. He saw Adapa Biksham running away along with the plaintiffs and raised alaram By the time the villagers came and the fire engine arrived, the mill was reduced to ashes. After recovering from the shock he gave a report to the village Munsif as to what had happened and he forwarded the same to the police station at Pedana. The Police after receiving the report investigated into the matter and arrested the plaintiffs along with others in the discharge of their duties. The defendant did not bring the sub inspector of Police and constables and was not responsible for getting the plaintiffs and others arrested. He was not instrumental in getting things done by the police. He was not aware of the bail application moved by the plaintiffs, nor did he get it opposed. It is therefore, false to say that the defendant caused the arrest of the plaintiffs of their wrongful confinement or false imprisonment. All that the defendant did was to give a report to the village munsif of what he had seen and believed to be true. It is true that the plaintiffs belonged to the opposite party to the defendant s son in the gram Panchayat. It is because of that they filed the suit to harass and cause loss to the defendant. The court below after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the case framed the necessary issues. It held on issued 1 that the plaintiffs were arrested on 12-7-1970 and were confined till 21-7-1970 on issues 2, 3 and 5, it was held that thare was no ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document