1984 Supreme(MP) 179

G. G. Sohani, J.
Bhanwarlal v. Fatey Singh.
F. A. No. 21 of 1982 (I); Decided on 7-3-1984.

Headnote:(1) Tort - malicious prosecution - suit for damages - burden of proof of want of reasonable and probable cause - not on defendant but on plaintiff.

       It is for the plaintiff to prove that his prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and provable cause. It is for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant invented whole of the story as far as it implicated the plaintiff. This is a very heavy onus of proof and unless the plaintiff sustains it, the plaintiff must fail. AIR 1926 PC 46 relied on. [Para 8

       (2) Practice (Civil) - finding of fact of the trial Court - when not binding - burden of proof not properly appreciated - finding is perverse and not binding.

       The finding of fact arrived at by the trial court has force if the finding is given after proper appreciation of the facts and law. Where the trial Court did not appreciate the matter of burden of proof, the finding is not binding. [Para 4

       (3) Tort - malicious prosecution-conviction by trial Court-acquittal by appellate Court - value of the judgment in criminal case in determining reasonable and probable cause.

       It is not enough in itself to establish a reasonable or probable cause that the plaintiff was committed for trial or even that he was convicted by a Court at first instance and subsequently acquitted on appeal. This seems goods sense, for, though there facts would be weighty evidence of a reasonable and probable cause, they should not be conclusive.

       The fact that the plaintiff was convicted by a Court at first instance, though not conclusive, will have a bearing on the question as to whether there was reasonable and probable cause. [Para 12