Law:

Section:

(a) Malicious prosecution------- Suit for damages----Ingredients to file the suit for malicious prosecution were that the plaintiff was prosecuted by the defendant; that the prosecution ended in plaintiff's favour; that the defendant acted without reasonable and probable cause; that the defendant was actuated by malice; that the proceedings had interfered with plaintiff's liberty and had also affected his/her reputation and the plaintiff had suffered damage. Muhammad Akram's case PLD 1990 SC 28 rel. (b) Malicious prosecution--- --Acquittal in criminal case---Effect---Acquittal decides only that accused has not been proved guilty of the offences with which he had been charged. (c) Malicious prosecution-.. -----Suit for damages-----proof---Concurrent findings of two Courts below-----Question for determination in such cases was not whether the plaintiff committed offence or whether the defendant invented offence against the plaintiff, but question was whether the plaintiff had proved that the defendant invented and instigated whole proceedings for prosecution---Where both the Courts below had decreed the suit of the plaintiff in violation of the principles of law, such s and decrees of both the Courts below were set aside in circumstances. Muhammad Akram's case PLD 1990 SC 28; PLD 1994 SC 476 and 1999 SCMR 700 ref. Kanwal Nain's case PLD 1983 SC 53 distinguished. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----(. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of---Concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below---Where decision on facts was based on no evidence or inadmissible evidence or was so perverse that grave ' injustice would result there from and material irregularity was committed, High Court had ample jurisdiction to disturb such findings of fact in circumstances. Shaukat Nawaz's case 1988 SCMR 851 fol. (e) Malicious prosecution--­---- . Concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below---Magistrate had found charge against the plaintiff to be groundless but no cogent reasons were given as to why the charge was false and vexatious---Magistrate was influenced by the act that the defendant failed to produce evidence and as such benefit of doubt…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492