LexSHRI RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA versus THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
). "L SHRI RA VIND ER KUMAR SHARMA A v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M. SRINIVASAN JJ.] B Torts-Malicious Prosecution-Appellant arrested by two Police Officers after a search in his Rice Mill-Seized Rice and Paddy sold by the Officials- Appellant discharged in Criminal prosecution-Suit by Appellant on the ground there was no reasonable or probable cause/or arrest-For pecuniary C and non-pecuniary damages-Dismissed by trial court-High court allowjng appeal in part-Decreeing suit in respect of pecuniary damages-On the , finding of lack of reasonable and probable cause and malice-Dismissed the claim for non-pecuniary damages-Arrest based on Assam Control Order- Respondents acted under Government instructions-Heid, the finding the D High Court that there was absence of reasonable and probable cause is erroneous. Civil Procedure Code, 1908-As Amended in 1976--0rder XL/ Rule 22-Suit by Appellant for malicious prosecution-For pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages-Dismissal by trial court-Appeal decreed in part by E High Court in respect of pecuniary damages-Appeal by Appellant for non- pecuniary damages-No appeal or cross-objections by Respondents-Whether an adverse finding by the High Court can be relied on by Respondents to sustain the dismissal of suit-Held-Yes-Filing of cross-objection by Respondent is optional and not mandatory. Section I I-Suit by appellant-Decreed in part by High Court-No appeal or cross objections filed by Respondent-Appeal by Appel/an/- Findings in respect of Partial decree can be relied on by Respondent to sustain the dismissal of suit in part-Held, there is no res judicata. F Evidence Act 1872-Section 8l-Stat_em_e11;ts .in newspaper- G Presumption of genuineness cannot be treated as proof of facts stated therein -Statements only hearsay. The Appellant claimed that on 1.10.77 Respondents 2 & 3 the State Police Officers entered his mill and seized Paddy and rice for violation of H 339 ·- 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A provisions of Assam Food Grains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961. The Appellant was arrested and later released. The Respondents sold the Paddy and rice and realised the amount. The Appellant was discharged by the Criminal Court on the ground that the Assam Control order of1961 was not in force at the time of search, seizure and arrest of the Appellant and that B it expired on 30.9.97. The Appellant filed a suit for damages for malicious prosecution against the State and two Police Officers for recovery of amounts shown in the suit schedules A to C by way of preliminary and non-preliminary damages. In the Civil Suit filed by the Appellant, he contended that the search, C seizure and arrest were unauthorised as the Central Government had removed various restrictions and the views in that regard were published in the newspapers on 29.9.77, that he had personally informed the Respondents 2 & 3 about the expiry of the Control Order that the Defendants 2 & 3 did not pay heed and arrested the Appellant because their demand for a bag of D rice was not complied with, that the Defendants 2 & j acted malafide that the Appellant and the owners of the paddy/rice had permits for milling paddy and the same were produced before the officers, that the sale of goods was made in haste and that these facts showed that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the prosecution. E The Respondents contended that on 1.10. 77 no order of Central Government was published in the gazette, that even Appellant had no knowledge of the said Order because no such fact was stated even in the bail petition filed by hiin, that the State had issued instructions on 30.9.97 that enforcement of Assam Control Order was in force and that the action in pursuance of F Government instructions is bonafide. The Defendants denied the demand for a bag of paddy and also contended that no permits were shown to them and therefore there was reasonable and probable cause for the arrest and prosecution. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and held that there was reasonable G and probable cause for the prosecution, that the action of the defendants was based on the State Government's directive that the Assam Control Order should be enforced, that the case of demand of rice bag was false and that the entire claim was imaginary. On appeal by the Appellant, the High Court granted a decree for H pecuniary dam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.