MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to call in question the judgement and decree dated 18.1.2005 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Haroonabad dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-Muhammad Ashraf against the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2004, maintaining the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of malicious prosecution was dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are to the effect that Muhammad Ashraf plaintiff-petitioner is owner of land measuring 250 kanals in Khata No. 18 in Chak No. 127-6-R and is co-sharer with the defendant. There was civil litigation between the parties. The plaintiff plucked the mangoes from tree situated in Killa No. 17 of Square No. 57. The defendant-respondent moved an application for registration of F.I.R. Against the petitioner at Police Station, Faqirwali and a criminal case has been registered. The plaintiff felt himself insulted as the criminal prosecution has dis-reputed him and he has claimed Rs. 10,000/- for the loss caused to his reputation. He also incurred expenses while pursuing the case F.I.R. No. 204/99.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant who filed his written statement averring therein that against the acquittal of the petitioner, appeal is pending before the High Court. From the factual controversies appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to have decree for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- on the basis of malicious prosecution as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(3) Relief?
4. After recording and appreciating the evidence pro and contra, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.1.2004 dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also met with the same fate.
5. The question to be determined by this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled for the decree of damages, for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for malicious prosecution.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. During the investigation the plaintiff was found guilty and challaned to the Court of competent jurisdiction alongwith his co-accused and after the trial of the case plaintiff was acquitted on account of non- 'production of evidence by the prosecution. The defendant did not appear before the Criminal Court to depose against the petitioner.
7. In a suit for recovery of damages and compensation on the basis of malicious prosecution the plaintiff is under legal obligation to establish the following ingredients:--
(a) That the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant in criminal charge.
(b) That the prosecution had ended in plaintiffs favour.
(c) The prosecution was malicious.
(d) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
(e) The proceedings had interfered with the plaintiffs liberty and had affected/ruined the reputation and he has to suffer the mental and financial agony.
Reference in this context is placed to the case of Muhammad Mantazuddin Vs. Shamsur Rahman (PLD 1964 Dacca 618).
8. From the perusal of the record available on the file, it indicated that the plaintiff-petitioner was prosecuted on the report lodged by the respondent and he was acquitted from the charge. It was not proved that it was done maliciously or on ulterior motive. The defendant-respondent was justified to set the machinery of law in motion for redressal of his grievance. The police having found the plaintiff guilty challaned to the Court but due to the non-production of prosecution evidence he was acquitted. The onus of proving absence of reasonable and probable cause was on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner and the said onus could not be discharged merely showing that the prosecution was launched on the behest of the defendant. In the case of Abdul Rauf Vs. Abdul Razzak and another (PLD 1994 S.C. 476) the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court have observed that the term "malice" in a malicious prosecution of the nature which is before us has been held not to be spite or hatred against any individual but the "malus animus" and denotes the working of improper and indirect motives. Proper motive for a prosecution is the desire to secure the ends of justice and it should be shown that the defendant was not actuated by such desire but by his personal feelings.
9. It is settled principle of law that the malice should be proved affirmatively. There is no such evidence to establish the malicious prosecution of the petitioner by the respondent that the prosecution was malicious or the prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause.
10. If any of the ingredients laid down by the superior Courts is missing the litigant is not entitled for decree for compensation and damages. 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. In the present case after registration of the case the defendant did not pursue the case and also did not appear in the Court for statement against the petitioner-petitioner. The plaintiff/petitioner did not produce evidence in support of his version except his own solitary statement.. In this statement the petitioner no where stated that his prosecution by the 'respondent was without reasonable, probable cause. Nor he stated that he sustained any mental injury/agony by this prosecution. In the instant case all the ingredients lor the malicious prosecution have not been established as laid down in the cases of Subedar (Retd.)
Fazale Rahim Vs. Rab Nawaz (1999 SCM R 700) and Messrs Marine Management Company through Proprietor Vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 2 others (PLD 2000 Kar. 214).
11. There is a concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction even if the High Court can take a different view after re-appraising the evidence of the parties. Reference in this context can be placed to the cases of Guldar Khan Vs. Isa Khan (1993 SCM R 2099), Nazir Ahmad Vs. Boota (1989 SCM R 450), Riaz Vs. Muhammad Saleem (1989 SCM R 1491) and Haji Muhammad Din Vs. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (1994 PSC 254).
7. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine.
Civil Revision .