Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This is an appeal by the sole defendant from the judgment of Mr. S. Z. A. Naqui, Additional Subordinate Judge. Second Court, Monghyr, decreeing the plaintiffs suit for damages for malicious prosecution.

2. On this appeal, only two questions have been debated at the Bar: (1) Whether there was want of reasonable and probable cause on the part of the defendant-appellant in prosecuting the plaintiffs-respondents in the Criminal Court and, (2) Whether the defendant in prosecuting the plaintiffs was actuated and motivated by malice?

3. The plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the defendant for grant of a decree for Rs. 11000/- as per account given at the foot of the plaint by way of damages for malicious pro-eecution.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs was that in the year 1942-43 the defendant was posted at Monghyr as a Sub-Deputy Collector, and he was also then Price Control Officer there, As plaintiff No. 1 did not agree to the reduction of his quota of sugar for the benefit of one Sukhdeo Ram Marwari of the Firm of Messrs, Trilokchand Sukhdeo Bam, who was in the good books of the defendant, he was annoyed with the plaintiff. It was further alleged in the plaint that for various other reasons the defendant bore grudge and malice against plaintiff No. 1. and. therefore, he tried in various ways to harm the plaintiff No. 1. In December, 1942, the defendant had purchased two gallons of petrol from plaintiff No. 1s petrol pump at Monghyr on credit. On the 16-4-1943. the plaintiffs had gone to the Price Control Office to enquire about the payment of the price of the said petrol when plaintiff No. 1 was arrested by the defendant, who subsequently lodged a complaint against both the plaintiffs under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, on 26-4-1943. The plaintiffs were put on trial, but were ultimately acquitted on 14-8-1943. It was alleged that out of sheer malice the defendant had prosecuted the plaintiffs without any reasonable and probable cause on account of which plaintiff No. I suffered heavy loss in his business, and repu- tation, and was put to acute physical and mental worries. The plaintiiis, therefore, c!a med that they were entitled to Rs. 24.000/- as damages, but due to the slender means of the defendant the plaintiffs confined their claim to Rs. 11,000/- only. (5) The defendant contested the suit on he main ground that the prosecution of the plaintiffs was bona fide and true, and, in the interest of purity of administration of justice, and, there was no malice on his part, He further denied the plaintiffs story about his purchase on credit of two gallons of petrol from the plaintiff ls petrol shop, and, the demand by them of the price thereof from the defendant.

5a. The learned Subordinate Judge found that: ".....Prom the very beginning each Individual act of Mr. Kumar against Babu Etwari Sahu was actuated with worst type of malice and personal grudge against him and the case under Section 448, I. P. C., under consideration was also brought by Mr. Kumar out of sheer malice and without any reasonable and probable cause."

5b. He further found that the notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were sent to the defendant on 11-6-1944, and 12-6-1944, and were duly served on him. On the question of the quantum of damages, he found that the plaintiffs claim was not unreasonable. He, therefore, decreed the plaintiffs suit in toto against the defendant.

6. The defendant, therefore, has presented the present appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge. Mr. Ray Paras Nath, Government Pleader, in support of the appeal, has contended that the findings of the court below are erroneous in fact and law both, and, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove either malice or want of reasonable and probable cause on the part of the defendant in filing the complaint (Ext. 3), and in prosecuting the plaintiffs under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, an