JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment & decree dated 3-9- 2021 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur (Surguja), in civil suit No.9-B/2015 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming damages for malicious prosecution was dismissed. Being aggrieved by such judgment, the present appeal.

2. (i) The plaintiff filed a suit against three of the State authorities wherein the defendant No.4 was also arrayed in his personal capacity. According to the plaintiff, he was working as a Principal, Oriental Public School Navagarh, Ambikapur, from 1994. It was established in 1990. The pleading shows that the school used to impart education from LKG to Class XII under the pattern of CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education), Delhi. It was pleaded that about 1800 students were studying. In the said school, 55 teachers and 40 office staff members were working. The school was spread over in the lands situated in village Navagarh, which comprises a sports ground also. The school had a reputation that large number of students from different parts of the vicinity used to study.

(ii) The plaintiff stated that owing to political rivalry, the defendants No.1 to 3 forcibly entered into the school premises on 3-9-2011 and seized the tractor trolley bearing registration No.CG-15-A-8606 & CG-15-A-8607, respectively and took away to the Forest Office at South Surguja. According to the plaintiff, it was informed to the police. Subsequent to such seizure, the case was registered for confiscation bearing POR No.16225/12 and the allegations were there that the plaintiff has illegally excavated the Murum from the forest land. Pursuant thereto the tractor trolley was seized with the Murum and initiated the confiscation proceedings. The plaintiff stated that the said tractor trolley stationed in school premises and no transportation of Murum was carried out from any forest land. The tractor trolley was directed to be confiscated by the competent authority on 15-2-2013.

(iii) Being aggrieved by such confiscation order, the plaintiff had filed an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short ‘the Act, 1927’) wherein the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 31-8-2013. Against the said order, criminal revision bearing No.94/2013 was preferred wherein the First Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 31-5-2014 allowed the revision and set aside the orders of both the competent authority and the appellate authority, which was for confiscation of tractor trolley. According to the plaintiff, since clear finding was recorded by the First Additional Sessions Judge that the Forest Department failed to prove the land from which the seizure of tractor trolley was made was that of a forest land and the alleged Murum was excavated from forest land. Thereafter, the tractor trolley was taken back. While the tractor trolley was being taken back it was completely in wrecked condition and many parts were missing.

(iv) The plaintiff stated that while tractor trolley was seized it was in the state of mobility and while the return was made after 1105 days it almost turned scraped. The plaintiff sought for payment of amount of damages of cost of tractor trolley to the extent of Rs. 4,50,000/-; the accumulated rent of Rs. 5,52,500/- (at the rate of Rs. 500/- per day x 1105 days); defamation was valued at Rs. 5,00,000/-; as also the notice charge of Rs. 2,000/-, in total Rs. 15,04,500/- was claimed.

3. The defendants filed their written statement and denied all the plaint averments. It was stated that the plaintiff had already filed a complaint before the police, but the police having investigated found that the action of the State was justified.

4. The plaintiff on his behalf examined as many as five witnesses namely; himself (Israr Ahmed Khan Suri) as PW-1; Mohib Khalifa (PW-2); Ashfaq Ahmed Khan (PW-3); Santosh Tekam (PW-4); and Babulal Vishwakarma (PW-5) whereas th