JUDGMENT : 1. In this case the plaintiff-respondent has sued the defendant-appellant for damages for malicious prosecution. The facts are simple. The parties were old enemies. On 15th August 1915 the plaintiff repaired a boundary mark between his grove and the defendant's grove or rather he had it repaired by his servants. On 16th August, the defendant Puttu Lal made a complaint before a Magistrate to the effect that Ram Sarup had gone to the grove armed with a gun assisted by four or more men armed with lathis, axes and spades; that they had, in spite of his protest, dug up the boundary mark and rebuilt it so as to include a portion of his grove in Ram Sarup's grove, and as he protested, they pushed him and assaulted him, and had moreover cut down two trees belonging to him. The Magistrate took his statement on oath and issued a summons to Ram Sarup to appear in Court, informing him that he had been charged with offences under Ss. 426 and 447, I.P.C. Puttu Lal had made a complaint of offences under these two sections and also under Ss. 147 and 352, I.P.C. 2. The case was tried. Puttu Lal entered the witness-box. He testified to the facts which he had alleged, including assault, riot, wilful mischief and criminal trespass. He called witnesses who corroborated his statement. Evidence was taken as to whether or not there had been any encroachment. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that the dispute was only a dispute over a boundary, that no offence had been committed and he acquitted the accused. Puttu Lal, thereupon, brought a suit in the civil Court under Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act for possession of land from which he claimed that Ram Sarup had dispossessed him. The Munsif held that no dispossession had been proved and dismissed the suit. Ram Sarup then brought the present suit for damages for malicious prosecution. It was dismissed by the Court of first instance. 3. The lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution story in the criminal case by Puttu Lal was false to the knowledge of Puttu Lal himself and that therefore there was no question of any reasonable or probable cause in the case, in that to Puttu Lal's own knowledge the complaint was false. 3. The lower appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution story in the criminal case by Puttu Lal was false to the knowledge of Puttu Lal himself and that therefore there was no question of any reasonable or probable cause in the case, in that to Puttu Lal's own knowledge the complaint was false. On this finding but without mentioning the word “malice,” the lower Court remanded the case to the Court of first instance for decision of the other points which had not been touched by that Court. It is urged that there was no prosecution by Puttu Lal of Ram Sarup in respect to the offences under Ss. 352 and 147, I.P.C. and that therefore Putta Lal is not liable for damages in that there was no prosecution for offences under these two sections. 4. We do not think that the case can be narrowed down in this way. Puttu Lal, according to the finding of the Court below, went into a criminal Court with a story that was false from beginning to end, and false to his own knowledge. Hemade that false complaint. Ram Sarup was dragged into Court not of his own free will but against it. Evidence was given by Puttu Lal which, if it had been accepted, would have resulted in the conviction of Ram Sarup for all four of the offences mentioned in the written complaint, even though only Ss. 426 and 447 had been mentioned in the summons issued. In our opinion the facts, as found by the Court below, prove clearly and distinctly that Puttu Lal did prosecute Ram Saruq on a false charge and that he did his best to secure a conviction for offences under all four sections. The cases quoted to us, viz., Golap Jan v. Bhola Nath Khetry, (1911) 38 Cal 880 : 11 IC 311. Nalliappa Goundan v. Kailappa Goundan, (1901) 24 Mad 59, do not help us in the present case at all. They are all cases in which no process was issued according to law to the accused person. The views taken by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts do not agree with the view taken by the High Court of Bombay: vide the case of Ahmedbhai Habibbhai v. Framji Edulji Bamboat, (1904) 28 Bom 226. They are all cases in which no process was issued according to law to the accused person. The views taken by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts do not agree with the view taken by the High Court of Bombay: vide the case of Ahmedbhai Habibbhai v. Framji Edulji Bamboat, (1904) 28 Bom 226. However, it is unnecessary for us to decide which of these two views is correct according to our opinion, for in the present case the accused was dragged into Court and Puttu Lal did all that lay in his power to prosecute him. It is next pleaded that there is no finding by the Court below on the question of malice. It is correct to say that there is no direct finding as to malice, but the facts found by the Court below are such that a Court is bound to infer malice from these facts, for the complaint made by Puttu Lal was held to be false and without foundation. There is moreover the additional finding of fact that the parties were old enemies and had been at litigation. Malice is clearly and distinctly established in the case and in our opinion there is no force in this appeal. It is therefore dismissed with costs.