The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of the plaintiff was justified due to acts of mismanagement, bad faith, and financial detriment to the Society.

JUDGMENT

1. (28th June 1938).- This appeal arises out of a suit for damages : (a) for malicious prosecution, and (b) for wrongful dismissal from service. There are nine defendants to the suit. Defendant 1 is the Chatra Serampore Co-operative Credit Society, a Society established under the Co-operative Societies Act and carrying on banking business. The plaintiff Becharam was the Manager of the Society. He was dismissed on the 29th May 1929. Defendant 2 Bhupendra is a Government Inspector of Co-operative Societies. He was appointed Manager of the Society with the consent of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for 6 months in the place of the plaintiff, and discharged his duties as such in addition to his own duties as Inspector. Defendants 3 to 9 were some of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society at the material time. The claim for damages for malicious prosecution is against all the defendants, and the other claim is against defendant 1, hereafter to be called the Society. In the plaint damages for malicious prosecution have been assessed at Rs. 2600 being made up of Rs. 2200 said to have been incurred as out of pocket costs by the plaintiff in defending the criminal cases started against him and Rupees 400 on account of his suffering in mind, body and reputation by reason of the prosecution. Damages for wrongful dismissal have been assessed in the plaint at Rupees 7500, Rs. 6663 being for loss of pay from 29th May 1929 to 4th June 1931, when the plaintiff was acquitted of the criminal charge, and Rs. 837 being the Society's contribution to his provident fund which was forfeited on his dismissal. The Sub-ordinate Judge upheld the plaintiff's contention, but reduced the claim for damages. He awarded Rs. 1928 as damages for malicious prosecution against defendants 1 and 3 to 9, defendant 2 being absolved from liability, and Rs. 1662 which represents a sum total of three months pay at Rs. 275 a month and the aforesaid sum of Rs. 837, as damages against the Society for wrongful dismissal. Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 have preferred this appeal. The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of cross-objection. He has not sought therein to make Bhupendra (defendant 2) liable, but has asked for mere damages against the Society for wrongful dismissal.

2. The prosecution against him was started on a letter which Bhupendra handed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 25th April 1929 and was treated on 26th April 1929 as a first information report (Ex. BB, paper-book, Part II, p. 749). He was sent up before the Magistrate with Jiten, the accountant of the Society, on 17th May 1929 on a charge under Sections 477.A and 120 B, I.P.C. Another case u/s 409, I. P. C, was also started against him, but that case was not tried on the merits, the proceedings having been quashed by this Court on a reference from the Sessions Judge after his acquittal on the first mentioned charges. The subject-matter of the first mentioned charges was entries in the fair cash book of the Society in respect of six sums of money, namely Rs. 1462-9-6, Rs. 221-15-3, Rs. 297.10-9, Rs. 25, Rs. 31.4-0 and Rs. 18-12.0. After preliminary investigation by the Magistrate, he and his co-accused were committed to the Sessions, but this Court quashed the commitment order on the ground that the offences charged were not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, and directed that they be tried by the Magistrate. The Magistrate convicted the plaintiff and Jiten under Sections 477-A and 120-B, I.P.C., on 23rd May 1930, (Ex.FF; II-796) and sentenced the plaintiff to two years' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge acquitted both on 4th June 1931, (Ex. 1; II.806). Jiten had not filed any suit for damages. The questions in this appeal are:

(i) Was the criminal law set in motion against Becharam, the plaintiff by defendants 1 and 3 to 9 or any one of them? (ii) Was there any reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution? (iii)' Did any of the said defendants