1991 PLP 309 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASALAT — Petitioner Versus NADIR MASIH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 309 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASALAT — Petitioner Versus NADIR MASIH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Malicious prosecution |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 309 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Malicious prosecution as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 309 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah and S. Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 309 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASALAT — Petitioner Versus NADIR MASIH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M. Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990.
- Ch. M. Yaqub Sidhoo, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 9-12-1959 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in C.R. No.759-D of 1959).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Suit for malicious prosecution
by Trial Court against petitioner was affirmed by Appellate Court below on merits, while the amount of damages was reduced
Petitioner submitted that principles on which a decree in suit for damages for malicious prosecution could be awarded had not been correctly followed by Courts below in so far as no clear finding had been given by them that prosecution launched by petitioner against respondents for theft was not without probable cause
Question raised being one of first impression, leave to appeal was granted. Abdul Rashid v. The State Bank of Pakistan and others. P L D 1970 Kar. 344 rel.
Judgment & Decree
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. 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. '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. P L D,1970 Karachi
344. The question raised is one of first impression. Leave granted. Security Rs.2,
500. 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. 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. H.B.T./M‑1308/S Leave granted.