1. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs, whose suit for damages for malicious prosecution, though decreed by the Munsiff, has been dismissed on appeal by the District Judge. It is conceded that the prosecution launched by the defendant against the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, under S.323, 341 and 447 read with S.34, I.P.C., for assaulting the defendant on his land, ended in a discharge. The Munsiff found "the defendant had filed the complaint without any reasonable and probable cause and maliciously". The District Judge found that the plaintiffs have not proved malice or want of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and therefore reversed the Munsiff. Counsel for the appellant contends that the District Judge's finding is based on an erroneous view of onus of proof and pointed out that there is a material distinction in this context between complaints on personal knowledge and complaints laid on information believed. In the former case, but not in the latter, the discharge by the criminal Court raises a presumption that the charge was without reasonable and probable cause.

2. In Taharat Karim v. Malik Abdul Khaliq (AIR. 1938 Patna 529) the learned