MUHAMMAD ASALAT vs NADIR MASIH And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts awarding damages to the respondents for malicious prosecution following their acquittal in a theft case under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the courts below correctly applied the principles governing suits for malicious prosecution, specifically regarding the requirement of a clear finding on the absence of probable cause for the initial prosecution. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition raised arguable questions regarding the proper application of legal principles for malicious prosecution, suspended the impugned decree subject to security, and ordered the appeal to be readied for an early hearing. The key principle laid down is that a suit for malicious prosecution requires a distinct finding regarding the presence or absence of reasonable and probable cause.
- Whether the principles for awarding damages in a suit for malicious prosecution were correctly followed without a clear finding on probable cause?
- Can the execution of a decree for damages for malicious prosecution be suspended pending appeal upon furnishing security?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The relevant facts are that in pursuance of the F.I.R. Lodged by the petitioner against the respondents accusing them of the theft of his jute bags the respondents were tried under section 379, P.P.C. But were acquitted by a learned Magistrate on 30-4-1984.
2. After they were acquitted the respondents filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.24,000 as damages for malicious prosecution. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court in toto but on appeal while the decree was affirmed on the merits, the amount of damages was reduced to Rs.15,000. The revision filed by the petitioner having failed hence this petition for, leave to appeal.
3. 'It is submitted that the principles on which a decree in suit for malicious prosecution can be awarded have not been correctly followed by the Courts below in so far as no clear finding has been given by them that the prosecution launched by the petitioner against them for theft was not without probable cause. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rashid v. The State Bank of Pakistan etc. PLD,1970 Karachi 344.
4. Security Rs.2,500.
5. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents if any and fixed for hearing at an early date.
6. In the meanwhile, the impugned decree shall be suspended on the petitioner's furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the trial Court for payment of the decretal amount in the event of the failure of this appeal.