J. M. SHETH, J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Junagadh in Special Civil Suit No. 58 of 1971, filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the appellants-defendants for recovery of Rs. 10,500/- by way of damages for malicious prosecution.

2. Appellant No. 1 B.L. Shukla was at the material time a police officer attached to Chorwad Police Station. Appellant No. 2 Kantilal K.Vora was at the material time Deputy Superintendent of Police, Verav Sub-Division. These two police officers were concerned with the investigation of the case registered at C.R. No. 101 of 1970 of Chorwad Police Station. In the course of an inquiry under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the information lodged by one Bharatdas Shamdas, it transpired that Prabhudas Shamdas was murdered. His death took place on the night between 26-10 1970 and 27-10-1970 between 11.00 p.m. and 2.00 a.m. On 29-10-1970, at 19.15 hours, information was lodged regarding this offence of murder. Appellant No.1. Police Sub-Inspector Shukla, was a formal complainant. The facts disclosed were that one Bai Divali Sidi had administers poison to deceased Prabhudas Shamdas who was residing with her and with whom she was in illicit connection. She was residing at village Gadu where she was running a lodge. Dead body of deceased Prabhudas was initially found behind that lodge run by Bai Divali.

3. First Information Report, according to the appellants, was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 328 of the Indian Penal Code against Bai Divali only. At a later point of time, on arresting Bai Divali and on interrogating her, it was found that present respondent Bai Fatma Ismail had come in the afternoon on 26-10-1970 to village Gadu and met Bai Divali. Bai Divali made a grievance before her that deceased Prabhudas was harassing her and consequently she was thinking of ending her own life. Respondent Fatmabai thereupon advised her not to take such a step but to administer poison to Prabhudas. Respondent supplied a packet containing poison to Bai Divali and obtained Rs. 3/- for it. It is significant to note that Bai Fatma, according to the appellants, was working towards Bantwa side as a nurse.

4. In the course of the investigation, statements of several persons were recorded. Bai Divali's statement was recorded and it was found that respondent Fatmabai had abetted the act of poisoning Prabhudas which resulted into the death of Prabhudas. On 30-11-1970. respondent Bai Fatma was arrested. Her bail application was rejected by the Court. Report was made to add certain sections of the Indian Panal Code and to add the name of present respondent as accused by present appellant No. 1. After the necessary investigation. Bai Divali as well as respondent Bai Fatma were charge-sheeted to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class. After a preliminary inquiry, both of them were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial. At the Sessions trial, both the accused including respondent Bai Fatma were acquitted. According to the appellants, they were acquitted giving them benefit of doubt.

5. Respondent gave intimation to the appellants by telegrams Exs. 24 and 22 respectively, dated 7-7-1971, regarding taking of action for malicious prosecution and claiming damages to the extent of Rs. 11,000/-. They were practically in identical language. Respondent Bai Fatma filed present Civil Suit No. 58 of 1971 on 17-8-1971, claiming damages to the tune of Rs.10,500/- for malicious prosecution.

6. At the trial, respondent's case was that appellant No. 1 had demanded Rs.500/- from her by calling her at the police station. On her having not acceded to that demand, she was threatened to be involved in this case, and it was for that reason that she was subsequently involved in the said case.

7. Several contentions were raised before the trial Court on behalf of the appellants denying the allegations made