' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.---The petition is directed against the judgment dated 19-11-2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khushab, affirming the judgment and decree dated 16-2-2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Khushab, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner was dismissed.
2. The back-drop of the controversy is that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution contending that the respondent's son Muhammad Aslam was assassinated, he lodged F.I.R. No, 135 dated 16-8-1993, under section 302, P.P.C. Investigation was conducted by the police, the petitioner was discharged aggrieved thereof the respondent filed a private complaint which too was dismissed, the petitioner termed this as malicious prosecution.
The suit was contested by the respondent issues were framed, parties were put to trial and thereafter the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel contends that, evidence has not been properly appraised by both the Courts below, there are material discrepancies in the evidence tendered by the respondent despite that the suit was dismissed, he relied upon the precedents reported as Nayab Ali Dafadar v. Abdul Gani alias Gulu Mia PLD 1969 Dacca 985 and Abdul Wahab Khan v. Messrs Pakistan Aviation Ltd., Karachi PLD 1970 Karachi 757.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and also perused the impugned judgment. In order to succeed in a suit for malicious prosecution the plaintiff is required to prove his case on the bench mark as set in Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28 the ingredients narrated in the aforesaid judgment are required to be pervert the trial Court meticulously kept this yardstick in mind and thereafter considered the evidence rendered by the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact on record that the respondent's son Muhammad Aslam was murdered, therefore, he had a right to seek justice, he IA nominated the petitioner in the F.I.R., it was up to the plaintiff/petitioner to prove that this act had an element of malice, the evidence clearly reflects that the plaintiff/petitioner has not been able to prove malice against the respondent. Likewise other necessary ingredients which lead to a successful action for grant of damages to malicious prosecution were also not fulfilled by the plaintiff / petitioner, he could not substantiate his assertions with quality evidence. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court rightly concurred with the findings of the Trial Court. There is concurrent finding against the petitioner no jurisdictional error or material illegality or material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence has been A pointed out, the precedents cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable on facts. Resultantly, this petition has no merits and is dismissed.