' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---This civil revision calls in question the concurrent judgments and decrees recorded by the learned Courts below in nine suits filed separately by each respondent for the recovery of Rs,25,000 as damages on the ground of malicious prosecution. Suits were contested by filing written statement. Parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court decreed all the nine suits for a sum of Rs,7,000 as compensation for malicious prosecution to the plaintiff. Nine separate appeals were preferred which were dismissed by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Okara vide judgment and decree dated 13-1-2004. Both the judgments and decrees are assailed through this civil revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff has to prove any malice against the petitioner in lodging of F.I.R. Against him. Further contends that evidence of the plaintiff- respondent is not sufficient enough to grant a decree in his favour.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that both the learned Courts below recorded finding of fact against the petitioner, which cannot be assailed, in absence of misreading/nonreading of evidence.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. These suits were for malicious prosecution. The respondent-plaintiff alleged that a false case under sections 440/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered against them vide F.I.R. No,150 of 1995 in Police Station, Gogera District Okara. Challan was submitted and all the plaintiffs-respondents were acquitted of the charge by the learned trial Court vide its judgment-dated 18-1-1999. The plaintiff in all the suits claimed loss of business, reputation, mental torture and payment of fee to the counsel in defending the criminal case. Muhammad Mushtaq appeared as P.W.2 and stated that the plaintiff enjoys good reputation. He is given respect by all and sundry. He was not convicted of any offence. Criminal case was registered against him on account of mala fide. Somewhat similar stance was available in evidence of other plaintiffs. The petitioner-defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and stated that his wheat and sugarcane crop was damaged in the nighttime on 6-5-1995.
He lodged a complaint against the respondents. They were challaned and ultimately they were acquitted of the charge. He denied that the petitioner suffered loss of their reputation or mental agony etc. On account of registration of criminal case.
6. At the very outset, it is noticed that for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff is under the onus to show that;- (i) he was prosecuted by the defendant on criminal charge; (ii) the prosecution terminated in plaintiff's favour; (iii) the prosecution was malicious; (iv) the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause; (v) the proceedings had interfered with the plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his reputation; and (vi) the plaintiff had suffered damages. The term "malice" in an action for malicious prosecution has been held not to be spite or hatred against any individual but of "malus animus" and denotes the working of improper and indirect motives. The plaintiff himself had to prove the malice by positive evidence. He had also to prove whether the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
7. From evidence led on plaintiff's behalf, there is no hint of any malice by the petitioner-defendant in launching of prosecution. On petitioner's lodging report, investigation was conducted by the police, who submitted challan. Trial was conducted. The police was of the view that the respondent-plaintiff has committed an offence alleged against them. The petitioner-defendant, thus, cannot be branded with allegation that he acted without reasonable or probable cause or with malice. Since the prosecution was not launched without probable and reasonable cause or with motive of false implication by the petitioner-complainant, with knowledge that he is seeking prosecution on a false trumped up charge, no decree for damages can be passed against the petitioner. I respectfully seek guidance from the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bibi PLD 1990 SC 28 and Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim v. Rab Nawaz 1999 SCM R.700, wherein it was held that mere fact that prosecution instituted by the defendant against the plaintiff ultimately failed, cannot expose the former to the charge of malicious prosecution unless it is proved by the plaintiff that the prosecution was instituted without any reasonable or probable cause and it was due to malicious intention of the defendant and not with a mere intention of carrying the law into effect.
8. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. All suits filed separately by each respondent are, thus, dismissed.