The distinction between malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, and the burden of proving reasonable and probable cause on the defendant.

K. C. JAGADEB ROY, J.

( 1 ) THE present appellants were plaintiffs in Money Suit No. 30 of 1976 in the court of the Munsif, Bargarh and brought the suit for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 2000 / - from Defendants 1 and 2. Their allegation was that the defendant 1 having hostility and ill-feeling to the plaintiffs caused to be implicated them in a criminal case and got them arrested by the police maliciously and they remained under arrest for two days under painful mental and physical condition. This was pursuant to a F. I. R. lodged by Defendant 1 dated 16-5-1973 against them for which a G. R. Case No. 247 of 1973 was registered in the police station and final report having been passed by the police, the case struck off by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20-7-1973. The Defendant No. 2 again falsely implicated the plaintiffs on 1-5-1987 in an arson case and managed to get them arrested by the police maliciously and the plaintiffs were under arrest from morning till midnight with mental and physical torture. Ultimately the said F. I. R. dated 4-1-1974 by Defendant No. 2 being found to be false, the G. R. Case No. 13/74 which was started against them was struck off by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 19-3-1974. Plaintiffs are close agnatic relations. The motive of the defendants in lodging these false cases was due to some disputes between them relating to the land in village. The police, however, filed final reports in both these cases on account of insufficient evidence. Since the plaintiffs, because of the false accusations in the F. I. R. suffered humiliation and their reputation were brought down in the estimation of their friends and relations and that they were wrongfully kept in the police custody, have claimed damage in the suit against defendants 1 and 2.

( 2 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendants in the suit, they denied the allegations of the plaintiffs. In the suit itself, some of the plaintiffs examined themselves as P. Ws. 1 to 3 and the defendants examined one witness as D. W. 1. In the evidence the plaintiffs have stated that the allegations against them were false and there was no justification in filing the F. I. Rs.

( 3 ) THE trial court found that there was reasonable and probable cause for the defendants to file the F. I. Rs. and defendants did nothing more than mere lodging the F. I. R. before the police and took no active part thereafter in prosecuting them or arresting them. The trial Court therefore dismissed the suit by judgment dated 11-3-1976.

( 4 ) AGAINST the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Bargarh, plaintiffs preferred Money Appeal before the Subordinate Judge, Bargarh in which the order passed by the Munsif was upheld. Though there was no specific allegation in the plaint that the claim of the damage was for malicious prosecution, the lower court in para 2 of the judgment has described the suit as one for malicious prosecution and wrongful confinement when in fact the recital of the plaint would show that the damage claimed by the plaintiff was due to loss of his reputation because of the allegation made in the alleged F. I. Rs. and for the physical and mental suffering on being wrongfully detained in police custody on the allegations made in the F. I. Rs. filed by defendants 1 and 2. The courts below therefore were misdirected and treated the case of the plaintiffs as a suit for damage for malicious prosecution and not false imprisonment or malicious arrest. These wrongs of malicious prosecution and malicious arrest are wrongs in Tort being essentially different from each other and different criteria have been specified for each of these wrongs to be brought home. An action for such false imprisonment will lie against any person who authorises or directs the unlawful arrest or detention of the plaintiff by a merely ministerial officer of the law, as distinguished from a judicial officer or Court of Justice. For such malicious prosecution,