SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, J.--- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 20.3.1994, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby, appeal brought by respondent against the judgment dated 28.5.1992, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, was accepted and suit brought by him for recovery of Rs.25,000/- as damages was decreed in his favour to the extent of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent-plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 25,000/- as damages against the petitioner. The plaintiff stated that he had a tubewell for irrigation of his land, therefore, obtained electricity connection from WAPDA (defendant-petitioner) vide Account No. 1247 and had been regularly paying its bills. He further stated that Muhammad Raoof Khan, LS-II, who was employee of defendant, got registered a false case regarding theft of electricity against him on 24.1.1984 and mentioned his Account No. 1250 instead of 1247 and that meter bearing Account number 1250 was owned by Khushi Muhammad. The plaintiff maintained that challan was submitted before Trial Court (Special Magistrate, WAPDA) and he was convicted vide judgment dated 4.4.1998 and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1500/- and in default he had to suffer six months' R.I. The plaintiff filed appeal which was accepted by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide judgment dated 8.8.1988 and he was acquitted. Thereafter, he filed present suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The defendant mentioned in written statement that Muhammad Raoof Khan had no personal enmity with the plaintiff and that he (plaintiff) was found committing theft of electricity, therefore, criminal case was registered against him. On the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed the issues, recorded evidence but suit brought by plaintiff-respondent was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.5.1992. The respondent filed an appeal against the said judgment which was accepted by learned Addl. District Judge vide judgment dated 20.3.1994 and suit brought by him was decreed in his favour to the extent of Rs.10,000/-. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above, Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent-plaintiff, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.
25,000/-against petitioner on the ground that WAPDA (petitioner-defendant) got registered a false case regarding theft of electricity against him, but he was acquitted therefore, he was entitled to got Rs. 25,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that damages can be claimed only if a case is registered against a party without reasonable and probable cause and that defendant had acted maliciously. Further submits that plaintiff- respondent was found committing theft of electricity, therefore, he could not claim damages from the petitioner/WAPDA.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that petitioner- defendant got registered a false case against the plaintiff-respondent and he had been facing the agony of trial for about 41/2 years, therefore, learned Addl. District Judge had rightly decreed the suit brought by him.
6. I have considered the submissions, made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully. The perusal of record shows that at the instance of WAPDA, case (FIR No. 50/84) was registered at P.S. Sadar Sheikhupura OS. 39-A of Electricity Act against Muhammad Yaqoob, respondent-plaintiff. Waqas Ashraf, XEN, appeared as DW 1 and stated that on 24.1.1984, he was posted as SDO, Ata Abad, Sub-Division, Sheikhupura, He further stated that Muhammad Raoof Khan, Line Superintendent, informed him about the theft of electricity committed by Muhammad Yaqoob, whereupon, he got registered case against him. The witness further stated that Account Number of Muhammad Yaqoob was 1247 but inadvertently in FIR it was mentioned as 1250. He clearly stated that plaintiff was found committing theft of electricity and that actually the meter of plaintiff was taken into possession and the same was handed over to police. He deposed that he did not know the plaintiff and that he had no enmity with him. DW.3 Muhammad Raoof Khan, Line Superintendent, stated that during checking he found that seals of meter of plaintiff were tampered with and he was committing theft of electricity. The witness stated that he removed the meter of plaintiff and submitted report before SDO who got registered a case and handed over the said meter to police. He was witness of recovery memo. The witness stated that Account Number of plaintiff was 1247 but due to clerical mistake the same was recorded as 1250 and that actually meter of plaintiff was removed and handed over to police. Muhammad Raoof Khan (DW3) clearly stated that he had no enmity with plaintiff and that case was based on real facts. During cross- examination he stated that he had no record with him when he visited the spot. The statements of DWs 1 and 3 indicates that criminal case was registered against the plaintiff when he was found committing theft of electricity. Their statements are convincing and confidence inspiring. The evidence produced by the defendant clearly shows that there was no malice on the part of defendant. In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff has to prove that case was registered without reasonable and probable cause and that defendant had acted maliciously (i.e. With an improper motive .And not to further the ends of justice). The plaintiff examined M. Anwar as PW1.
During cross-examination he stated that he did not know whether plaintiff had committed theft or not. As such his statement has no value. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause and that defendant had acted maliciously which is necessary in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution. Even otherwise, the plaintiff-respondent was convicted by learned Special Magistrate, WAPDA and he was acquitted by Appellate Court.
Likewise, suit brought by the plaintiff was dismissed by learned Civil Judge and suit was partly decreed by learned Appellate Court. As mentioned above, case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Raoof Khan, LS-II, as he found the plaintiff committing theft of electricity. So there is nothing on record to show that prosecution was without reasonable or probable cause. Even otherwise, the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove that officials of WAPDA (petitioner) got registered case against him due to any animosity and malice. Learned Civil Judge too observed that prosecution was not without reasonable and probable cause and that employees of WAPDA got registered criminal case when they were performing their duty. In these circumstances, I find that learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit. The perusal of impugned judgment shows that learned Addl. District judge did not consider statements of DW1 and DW3 and acted in a hasty manner. As such, learned Addl. District judge decided the appal without appraisal of material available on record, therefore, impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition is accepted; impugned judgment is set aside and the suit brought by respondent-plaintiff is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.