Ramen Chettiar V. Punchiappuhamy

1937 Present: Moseley J. and Fernando A. J.

RAMEN CHETTIAR v. PUNCHIAPPUHAMY.

259-D. C. Kandy, 44,132.

Malicious prosecution-Burden of proof-Plaintiff not bound to prove his innocence-Roman-Dutch law.

In an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is not bound to prove his innocence or the falsity of the charge apart from proving the termination of criminal proceedings in his favour.

Moss v. Wilson (8 N. L. R. 366); Corea v. Peiris (9 N. L. R. 276) referred to.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Kandy.

H. V. Perera, K. C. (with him Molligoda), for defendant, appellant.

N. E. Weerasooria (with him Ranawake, Cyril Perera and Wikramanayake), for plaintiff, respondent.

November 25, 1937. FERNANDO A. J. -

This was an action for malicious prosecution, and the learned District Judge was of opinion that in order to succeed in. such an action, the plaintiff had to prove-(1) that he was prosecuted, (2) that he was acquitted, (3) that the defendant was actuated by malice express or implied, and (4) that the defendant had no reasonable and probable cause for prosecuting the plaintiff. It was common grou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document