JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs for the recovery of Rs. 14,500 as damages for malicious prosecution. The facts relevant to this appeal may be shortly stated: Plaintiffs 1 to 6 are the residents of village Kenwalpur in the District of Bahraich; plaintiffs 1 to 5 are relations and plaintiff 6 was the cosharer of plaintiff 1 in the theka of Haripur. Defendants 1 to 5 are the residents of village Haripur in the same district. Defendants 1 to 4 are brothers, and defendant 5 is the son of defendant 1. 'He is the adopted son of defendant 2.

2. One Debi Prasad, a man of the Bhinga estate, obtained a decree against Swami Dayal, defendant 5, for Rs. 737-7-0 and costs on 13th May 1929. The suit was based on a bond executed by Swami Dayal on 14th March 1928. The defense of Swami Dayal in that suit was that he had borrowed nothing from Debi Prasad and had executed no bond in his favour. It was pleaded that he had gone to the sons of Raja of Bhinga on that date (14th March 1928) to demand payment of certain debts due from them. They were displeased with him and ordered that he should be beaten. He was then made to sign two stamped papers one of which was the bond in suit. The defence was rejected by the learned Munsif and the plaintiffs' claim was decreed with costs. The defendant's appeal was however allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge, and the result was that the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with costs. Debi Prasad appealed to this Court, but his appeal was dismissed on 30th January 1930. The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the bond in suit was not a genuine transaction and was without consideration was a finding of fact which could not be impugned in second appeal. Debi Prasad, having obtained the decree against Swami Dayal, took out execution against him in the last week of June 1929, on the reopening of the Court after the long vacation. The warrant of attachment was issued on 22nd /24th June 1929. It was executed on 25th June 1929 at about 10 a. m. Three process servers, namely, Lachhman Prasad, Bhawani Prasad and Jang Prasad, were deputed to execute the warrant. Their report was to the effect that the judgment-debtor, Swami Dayal, could not be found, but his father, Sukdeo Prasad, was present. They (the process-servers) demanded payment of the decretal amount, but he did not pay the same, and then the judgment-debtor's property, as pointed out by the decree-holder, was attached and it was entrusted to the supurddar (Indra Bahadur Singh). The property consisted of grain, utensils and clothes, etc. A supurdnama was duly signed by Indra Bahadur Singh, and attested by Matbar Singh and Lal Bahadur Singh and others. A copy of the list of attached property was given to Sukhdeo Prasad, defendant 1, father of the judgment-debtor, and he signed the original list in acknowledgment of the receipt of the copy: see Exs. 2, 3 and A-7. It should be noted that Sukhdeo Prasad's acknowledgment was in the following terms:

The articles were attached according to the list and I have received a copy of the list (Ex. A-7).

3. All this was done on 25th June 1929. On 27th June 1929, Sukhdeo Prasad made a report at the police station, Bhinga, against all the 6 plaintiffs and others. The report in question was registered as a report under Sections 500 and 506, I.P.C. On 28th June 1929, Sukhdeo Prasad and Sitla Din filed a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Bahraich, charging all the 6 plaintiffs and 13 others with the offence of dacoity under Section 395, I.P.C., in connexion with the attachment mentioned above. (After giving the summary of the complaint, his Lordship proceeded). All the 6 plaintiffs and 7 others were committed for trial to the Court of Sessions under Section 395, I.P.C. They were however acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich on 23rd December 1929. The learned Additional Sessions Judge made the following observations in his judgment in acquitting