Liability for prosecution requires proof of a design to implicate the plaintiffs on a false criminal charge, beyond mere provision of information and evidence.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the Judgment of our learned brother Chandra reddy J. . The present appellants filed a suit O. S. No. 43 of 1949 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court Narasaraopet, against defendants 1 to 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5, 250/ by way of damages for malicious prosecution. The Subordinate Judge s court dismissed the suit as against the 1st defendant and gave a decree for Rs. 3,250/-against defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 2 and 3 thereupon filed A. S. No. 702 of 1950 on the file of the High court of Madras, By a judgment dated the 27th of August, 1954, the appeal was allowed by Chandra Reddy J. with the result that the entire claim of the plaintiffs against all the defendants stood negatived. On the 9th of October 1948, the 1st defendant s wife died. According to the plaintiffs she died a natural death while according to the defendants she met her death as a result of homicidal violence. Defendants 2 and 3 had informed the 1st defendant that they had seen the plaintiffs coming out of the back-yard of the 1st defendant at or about the time Ramamma, the 1st defendant s wife, met her death. The 1st defendant duly made a complaint to the police which they investigated. They eventually laid a charge-sheet against all the plaintiffs for an offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the India Penal Code, as accused in the criminal case, the plaintiffs pleaded that Ramamma died a natural death as a result of the fracture of the skull sustained by her on account of a fall on a cuddapah slab while she was carrying grain to the granary. The plaintiffs were acquitted on the 19th of January 1949 by the sessions Judge, Guntur in S. G. No. 55 of 1948. They brought an action on the 18th of April 1949 alleging inter alia that defendants 2 and 3 had conspired with the 1st defendant and foisted a false case of murder on them and gave evidence in support thereof both before the police and before the courts and took a leading part in the conduct of the case throughout and that they did all this with the intention of feeding their private spite against them. All the defendants denied liability. Defendants 2 and 3 averred that the statements made by them regarding the death of the wife of the 1st defendant were not made without reasonable and probable cause or with any malicious intent. The trial Judge found that defendants 2 and 3 were responsible for the prosecution of the plaintiffs and that they were actuated by malice but so far as the 1st defendant was concerned, he had reasonable cause for giving a report to the village munsif and that he was not actuated by malice. On appeal, Chandra Reddy, J. held that if a person does nothing beyond giving information to the police which he considers to be true, an action for damages for malicious prosecution is not maintainable against him, and that if, on the other hand, besides setting the law in motion he takes an active part in the conduct of the prosecution, he will be regarded as the real prosecutor although the actual prosecution is by the police and renders himself liable for damages. Applying the said principle, he held that defendants 2 and 3 could not be made liable for damages for malicious prosecution . Mr. Kotayya, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants argued that defendants 2 and 3 were the real persons behind the prosecution as they had colluded together and made the 1st defendant file a complaint before the police, that they had not only given information leading to the filing of the complaint but that, subsequently they gave evidence which they knew to be false, both before the police and the criminal courts and that therefore the decree granted by the Subordinate Judge in their favour should be restored. In an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must show first that he was prosecuted by the defendant, that is to say, the law was set in motion against him on a criminal charge; secondly, that the prosecution was determined in his favour; thirdl
Click Here to Read the rest of this document