2006 PLP 2201 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 2201 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J. |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Tort |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 2201 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Tort as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 2201 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 2201 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus JAN MUHAMMAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ibrahim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Suit for recovery of damages and compensation
Petitioner, during investigation was found guilty and challaned to the Court of competent jurisdiction along with his co-accused, but after trial of case he was acquitted on account of non-production of evidence by the prosecution
Respondent did not appear before the criminal Court to depose against petitioner
In a suit for recovery of damages and compensation on the basis of malicious prosecution, plaintiff was under legal obligation to establish, ingredients; that plaintiff was prosecuted by defendant on criminal charge; that prosecution had ended in plaintiff's favour; that prosecution was malicious; that prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause; and that proceedings had interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had affected/ruined his reputation and he had suffered mental and financial agony
If any one of said ingredients, was missing, the litigant was not entitled to compensation and damages
Malice should be proved affirmatively
No evidence was available in the present case to establish malicious prosecution of petitioner by respondent; that prosecution was malicious or prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause
Mere fact that prosecution instituted by respondent against petitioner ultimately had failed, could not expose respondent to the charge of malicious prosecution unless it was proved by petitioner that prosecution was instituted without any reasonable or probable cause and it was due to malicious intention of respondent and not with a mere intention of carrying law into effect
In the present case after registration of case respondent did not pursue the case and also did not appear in the Court for statement against petitioner
All ingredients for malicious prosecution had not been established
Suit filed by petitioner was concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
Such concurrent findings of the Courts below, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, even if High Court could take a different view after reappraising evidence of parties. Muhammad Mantazuddin v. Shamsur Rahman PLD 1964 Dacca 618; Shakil Ahmed v. Ashfaq Ahmed 1993 CLC 1669; Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Razzak and another PLD 1994 SC 476; Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and 2 others PLD 2000 Kar. 214; Guldar Khan v. Isa Khan 1993 SCMR 2099 and Nazir Ahmad v. Boota 1989 SCMR 450 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.
The facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are to the effect that Muhammad Saeed plaintiff-petitioner herein filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.20,000 having been prosecuted maliciously against the defendant-respondent asserting in the plaint that the said respondent had snatched the landed property in Khata Nos. 17 and 18 situated in Chak No. 127!6-R. Tehsil Haroonabad from his father through fraud who was mentally infirm person. It has also been alleged that in order to harass and pressurize the plaintiff the defendant got registered a case F.I.R. No. 204 of 1999 under, section 379, P.P.C. on 22-7-1999, at Police Station, Faqirwali with regard to the theft of mango trees standing in Killa No.17 of Square No.57 which was under cultivation of the father of the plaintiff-petitioner and on account of this criminal case he has to move for grant of bail and had been facing the trial of the case for three years.
2. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent and filed the written statement denying the averments of the plaint. From the factual controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties and after appraising evidence, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 7-1-2004.
3. The said judgment and decree has been challenged through an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge, Haroonabad, District Bahawalnagar who vide, his judgment and decree, dated 18-1-2005 dismissed the same maintaining the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. From the perusal of the evidence and record of the case it reveals that the plaintiff had been acquitted by the Court on account of the non-production of the evidence by the prosecution. The defendant-respondent had not appeared as witness in the Court to state against the plaintiff.
5. In a suit for recovery of damages and compensation on the basis of malicious prosecution the plaintiff is under legal obligation to establish the following ingredients:-- (a) He was prosecuted by the defendant in criminal charge. (b) The prosecution has ended in his favour. (c) The prosecution was malicious. (d) The prosecution was without reasonable and probable cause. (e) The proceedings had interfered with the plaintiffs liberty and had affected/ruined the reputation and he has to suffer the mental and financial agony. Reference in this context is placed to the cases of Muhammad Mantazuddin v. Shamsur Rahman (PLD 1964 Dacca 618), Shakil Ahmed v. Ashfaq Ahmed (1993 CLC (Kar.) 1669), Abdul Rauf v. Abdul Razzak and another (PLD 1994 SC 476), Subedar (Retd.) Fazale Rahim v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence Rawalpindi and 2 others (PLD 2000 Kar. 214).
6. Though the plaintiff was acquitted by the Court but he has not produced any evidence to establish that his prosecution was malicious without reasonable and probable cause and he has sustained the menal and financial loss, how much money has been spent by him on his medical treatment for the mental injury caused to him. There is no iota of evidence on the file to prove the facts.
7. There is a concurrent finding of facts against the petitioner which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction even if the High Court can take a different view after re-appraising the evidence of the parties. Reference in this context can be placed to the cases of Gulzar Khan v. Isa Khan (1993 SCMR 2099), Nazir Ahmad v. Boota (1989 SCMR 450), Riaz v. Muhammad Saleem (1989 SCMR 1491) and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291).
8. For the forgoing reasons, this revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-270/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.