1980 Supreme(MP) 149

R. K. Vijaywargiya, J.
Ramsingh v. Gulabsingh
S. A. No. 36 of 1970 (I); Decided on 25-7-1980.

Headnote:Tort-malicious prosecution-prosecutor-who is-person making false report and giving false evidence-is the prosecutor liable of damages.

       The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as follows. On the report of the appellant the respondents were arrested by the police and presorted under section 307; I.P.C. The respondent No.3 was also prosecuted under section 28 (b) of the Arms Act. The respondents were acquitted of the offences charged with. The respondents thereafter filed the present suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the appellant. According to them their prosecution at the instance of the appellant was without any reasonable and probable cause and was actuated by malice. The appellant contested the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was the prosecutor. that the prosecution was without and reasonable and probable cause and was actuated by malice. The trial Court therefore decreed the claim of the respondents. In appeal preferred by the defendant the findings of the trial Court were affirmed and consequently the appeal was dismissed. The defendant-appellant has challenged the decree of the Court below in this appeal.

       Held: Having heard learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not the prosecutor cannot be upheld on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. In the present case the appellant not only lodged the report which was false to his knowledge but also gave false evidence during investigation and also during trial. He also took active part in the investigation which was based on his report. These facts clearly make the appellant a prosecutor. On similar facts in 1972 JLJ 821 a Division Bench of this Court held the person who lodged the report as a prosecutor. In the present case also it has been found as a fact that the appellant not only lodged a report which was false to his knowledge but also gave false evidence during investigation as also during trial. In the circumstances as held by this Court in the case referred to above the appellant was rightly held to be the prosecutor and liable for malicious prosecution. The cases relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable on facts and do not help him. 1972 JLJ 821 retied on, A.T.R. 1960 M. P. 397 and A.I.R. 1956 Nag.264 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.