The defence of reasonable and honest belief is not available to the police officers because they did not make any effort to verify the information that the plaintiff was a proclaimed offender.

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of two appeals, RFA 10-D of 1964, instituted by Ram Pyare Lal, plaintiff,, as well as RFA 179-D of 1963, instituted by the Union of India, defendant No. 3. Both the appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree of the court of first instance, dated 3rd September, 1963, by which the court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, bearing No. 204 of 1960, claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 9000. 00 on account of alleged malicious prosecution of the plaintiff, while the other suit (No. 205 of 1960) instituted by the same plaintiff has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 12,500. 00 against the Union of India, on account of damages for false imprisonment out of a claim of Rs. 25,000. 00. In suit No. 205 of 1960, Union of India is defendant No. 3 and Om Prakash, who was the Station House Officer of the Kotwali Police Station, Chandni Chowk was impleaded as defendant No. 1 and Naut Ram Yadav, Assistant Sub-Inspector of the same Police Station was impleaded as defendant No. 2. The said defendants are all respondents in the plaintiffs appeal, while they have not been impleaded in the cross-appeal filed by the Union of India.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff is a practising Advocate since 1923 and has occupied various positions in social life. It appears that on 27th April, 1948 a First Information Report (Ex D3) was lodged with the Police complaining of an alleged offence under sections 420/406, Indian Penal Code. The information was primarily directed against one Gurbax Singh and it appears that the plaintiff was suspected to be involved in the case. Eventually, on 14th April, 1950 the plaintiff was discharged by a First Class Magistrate on a report of the Police (vide Ex. P8 ). However, it appears that the name of the plaintiff continued to be maintained in the records of the Police as an absconder, even in the registers for the years 1952 to 1957. On the material date, Shri 0m Prakash, defendant No. 1 was the Station House Officer in-charge of the Kotwali Police Station, while Naut Ram Yadav, defendant No. 2, was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of the same Police Station. The established facts are that as the name of the plaintiff was being maintained in the register of the Police in the list of absconders, Om Prakash, defendant No. 1, ordered defendant No. 2 to scrutinise the record of the proclaimed offenders and make an effort to make their arrests. Naut Ram Yadav, defendant No. 2 was thus directed to arrest the proclaimed offenders mentioned in register No. 4. He learnt on 21st March, 1957 that the plaintiff, whose name was borne on the register was present in the premises of the Criminal Courts at Kashmere Gate, Delhi and so at about 2. 00 p. m. he came to the court, approached the plaintiff and after satisfying himself with regard to his identity arrested him and produced him before the Magistrate who bailed him out. The allegation of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 2 after the arrest took the plaintiff to the Kotwali Police Station where defendant No. 1 again formally arrested him and sent him on the same day to the Magistrate, who bailed him out. Defendant No. 2 has, however, alleged that the plaintiff was not taken to the Police Station, but was taken to the prosecution branch which directed production of the plaintiff before the Magistrate and then defendant No. 2 produced him before the Magistrate between 3. (X) and 4. 00 p. m. on the same date. Eventually, the plaintiff was, after about two hours being in custody released on bail and was finally discharged on 31st December, 1957.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit on the allegations that he had been arrested unlawfully and falsely without any legal justification and that the defendants had committed the tort of false imprisonment. After giving a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure he claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 25,000. 00 from the Un