JUDGMENT - M.S. APTE, J.:---This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for damage of Rs. 1500/- for malicious prosecution has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court by a reversing of the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 300/- as damage. 2. It appears that the shops of the plaintiffs husband and that of defendants are adjacent to each other. There was some incident between them on August 9, 1962. The defendant was alleged to have been assaulted by the plaintiffs husband and her three children. Defendant made a complaint immediately to the police but the police treated the complaint as a non-cognizable one and referred the defendant to the competent Court. Accordingly defendant filed Criminal Case, No. 5758 of 1962 before the Magistrate against the appellant and her husband alleging offences falling under sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It appears that in that case the present appellant-plaintiff was acquitted by the trial Court while her husband was convicted and although in appeal the order of conviction was confirmed by the Appellate Court, he came to be acquitted in revision by the High Court. 4. The present suit in which this appeal arises was instituted by the appellant claiming damages of Rs. 1500/- on the allegation that the defendant had prosecuted her in that case maliciously and without any reasonable and probable cause and that she was falsely involved in that complaint. 5. Defendant denied the allegations and he contended and maintained that as a matter of fact he was assaulted by the plaintiff, her husband and their children and that he did not bear any malice against the plaintiff or her husband and he stated that because he was given benefit of doubt the plaintiff was acquitted by the trial Court. 6. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff that the prosecution of the plaintiff by the defendant was without reasonable and probable cause but that it was instituted maliciously and he therefore decreed plaintiffs suit and quantified the damages at Rs. 300/-. 7. Defendant appealed and the lower Court has held that the plaintiff failed to establish that she was prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause but with malice. In the result the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and plaintiffs suit was dismissed. 300/-. 7. Defendant appealed and the lower Court has held that the plaintiff failed to establish that she was prosecuted without reasonable and probable cause but with malice. In the result the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Hence plaintiff has come in second appeal. 8. In the first place whether as a matter of fact there was reasonable and probable cause for filing the prosecution or whether there was malice on the part of the defendant in filing that complaint is a question of fact and the lower Appellate Court was the last Court of fact to weigh the evidence in the case and the finding given on this point by the Court is binding on this Court and cannot be re-opened. 9. This apart of the merits also I find that there is no substance in the contention that plaintiff had succeeded in establishing want of reasonable and probable cause and malice on the part of the defendant. To show the absence of any reference to plaintiffs part in the assault a copy of the N.C. complaint was produced at Ex. 54 made to the police immediately after the incident by the defendant. The learned Judge below has held that this being a copy of the copy and is not a copy of the original document was inadmissible in evidence and therefore, it was not of any assistance to prove that really her name was not mentioned in the information given to the police. It does not appear that the learned Judge is in any way wrong in taking this view. Besides after all in the case of N.C. Complaint what the police records in the diary is a substance of what the complaint states. The statement of the complainant is not fully recorded. It is not unlikely that the Police Officer who records the substance may not incorporate certain details and omit them from the substance recorded in the police diary. Merely because there is some ommission in the substance of the complaint it cannot necessarily be inferred that fact was not referred to by the complainant when he narrated the incident to the police. Merely because there is some ommission in the substance of the complaint it cannot necessarily be inferred that fact was not referred to by the complainant when he narrated the incident to the police. At least the complainant ought to have examined the P.S.I. or the station house officer who recorded the substance of the N.C. Complaint to positively establish that the defendant had not at all attributed any part in the assault to the present plaintiff. In the absence of that evidence therefore, it is difficult to hold on the evidence as it stands that defendant had not involved the present plaintiff when he first narrated the incident to the police. That being so the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge below that the plaintiff has failed to establish positively that she was involved in the criminal complaint without any reasonable and probable cause appears to be correct. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs. -----