In an action for damages for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove that the proceedings instituted against him were malicious, without reasonable and probable cause, that they terminated in his favour and that he suffered damages.

1. - This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for damages against the appellant State of Rajasthan. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated, 24.8.85 passed by the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bundi, in Civil Suit No. 268/81. On appeal, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bundi, decreed the suit vide his judgment dated, 23.2.88 and the appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% w.e.f. 4.4.78 till the date of realisation.

2. The prosecution was launched against the respondent in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, on 23.4.73 by the Enforcement Officer of the District Supply Office, Bundi, under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In that case it was alleged that the plaintiff-respondent was carrying 87 Qtls. 50 Kg. 700 Gms. wheat in truct No. RSR 315. The truck was checked by the Enforcement Officer, near village Khatkar. The plaintiff-respondent failed to produce the declaration regarding wheat and had therefore, committed violation of clauses 3 and 4 of the Rajasthan Food Grains (Prevention of Hoarding) Order 1973. The case was decided by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.7.77 and the plaintiff-respondent was acquitted. The Court also held that the wheat which had been seized belonged to the plaintiff-respondent, Shiv Prasad, Hira Lal, Ram Kishan and Fateh Chand, residents of Ganjhaliji of Barana and, it therefore, ordered the return of price realised from the sale of the said wheat.

3. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the Enforcement Officer had with mala fide intention seized the wheat and with an ulterior motive prosecuted him with an object of causing mental, physical and economical injury. A notice under section 80 C.P.C. was given by the plaintiff-respondent and, thereafter, he filed suit for damages. The defendant-appellant contested the suit and stated that although, the plaintiff-respondent had been acquitted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, he was not entitled to claim damages because the action of the Enforcement Officer was not actuated by any malice or ulterior motive.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned Munisff framed three issues. The first issue was, as to whether the Enforcement Officer of the Supply Department had filed prosecution against the plaintiff-respondent with mala fide intention and without any reasonable cause. The second issue related to the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the last one was regarding relief. The plaintiff examined himself and produced Hira Lal, Fateh Chand and Dinesh Kumar in support of his claim. Kana Ram was examined as a witness on behalf of the defendant-appellant. After analysing the evidence of the two panes, the learned Munsiff recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove mala fide on the part of the Enforcement Officer and had not been able to prove that the action was taken against him without any reasonable or probable cause. It further held that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in section-15 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On that premise, the suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. In appeal, learned District Judge, Bundi, reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff by holding that the report submitted by Kana Ram itself shows that the goods were belonging to the agriculturists and Mohan Lal was also an agriculturist and, therefore, it was not proper for the Enforcement Officer to have filed the prosecution against Mohan Lal. The prosecution was launched without any basis and, therefore, it is justified to hold that the prosecution was launched with mala fide and without any probable cause and there was a lack of bona fide. Therefore, section 15 of the Essential Commodities Act was not attracted in the facts of the case. In these circumstances, it was not possible to sustain the judgment and decr