Defendants can be held liable for damages in a malicious prosecution case if their conduct with reference to the charge or the trial points them out as responsible for the prosecution. Exemplary damages may be awarded to punish the defendant in an exemplary manner and vindicate the distinction between a wilful and an innocent wrongdoer.

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In this suit, the plaintiff claims damages for malicious prosecution. His case is, that all the ten defendants along with one T. K. Prasada Rao, a Police Sub-Inspector (D. W. 5), conspired to bring against him a false charge of robbery, that he was thereupon prosecuted but discharged, that the proceedings against him were instituted maliciously and that he is therefore entitled to damages. The lower Court has found that defendant 1 was actively assisted by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9 as well as Prasada Rao. In the plaint, it is stated, that owing to certain technical reasons, Prasada Rao was not made a party. Although the Judge finds that defendant 1 was aided by defendants 2, 4, 7 and 9, it is only against the first that he has awarded damages. The plaintiff has filed this appeal complaining that the sum of Rs. 500 granted to him as damages against defendant 1 is inadequate and that, on the finding of the lower Court, the other defendants mentioned above, should also have been made liable.

2. We may shortly state the facts as found by the lower Court, for, with its findings we agree. The plaintiff was the President of the Local Fund Union at Tatikonda, a village in the Guntur District. Some among these ten defendants stood as candidates for election to that Union and the plaintiff, as its President, rejected the nomination papers of three of these candidates on the ground that they were invalid. The latter thereupon filed a civil suit against the President questioning his act and imputing some misconduct to him. After that case was filed, some of the ten defendants got one Sambasiva Rao, a clerk of the Local Fund Union, to state in writing, that the charges made against the plaintiff in the civil suit were well founded. This happened on 24th July 1923. The plaintiff came to know of this and as a counter-move got the clerk to his office the very next day and made him sign another writing which said, that the charges he made in the first statement were false and that he made them under coercion. This happened at about 9 p.m. on the 25th, The defendants, getting wind of what was going on, joined together and hatched a plot. It was pretended that defendant 2 executed a promissory note in favour of the fourth and borrowed from him a sum of money. Defendant 1 was to profess falsely to have been the messenger who carried the promissory note to the fourth and received from him the sum required. While he was taking this money to defendant 2s house at about 12 oclock in the night, it was to be given out that the plaintiff and two others suddenly pounced on him and committed robbery. Now, to return to the plaintiff, he left his office at about 9 p.m. with the counterstatement in his hands and when he came right in front of the police station, some of these defendants created a row, which acted as a signal for the Sub-Inspector to come out, and, with his help, they seized the plaintiff, wrested the paper from his hands and pushed him into the station where ha was confined in the police lockup. This occurred not about 12 in the night as pretended by the defence but more in the neighbourhood of 9 oclock.

3. The plaintiff was then and there charged with having robbed defendant 1 of the money, which however was not to he seen. To account for its disappearance, it was given out, that there were two other culprits, who, taking advantage of the confusion, ran away with the money. The plaintiff was kept in the lock-up till 4 p.m. on the following day. Then ho was sent to some Magistrate at Guntur along with two constables acting as his escort. The plaintiff was a man of 53, well placed in life. Nevertheless, he was made to walk the whole distance of ten miles, and reached Guntur only late in the night. The Magistrate could pass orders only the next day and the plaintiff was then released on bail. He suggests, and we think with reason, that such a late hour as 4 oclock was wantonly chosen, so that he might remain in cust