JUDGMENT 1. - These two revision petitions have been filed by the defendants aggrieved of the concurrent decree of damages to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- on account of malicious prosecution of the plaintiff respondent Subhash Chand, Head Master of the Jawahar Bal Mandir Higher Secondary School, Srikaranpur of which the defendant petitioners were originally appointed on 1/11/1991 as teachers and were later on removed from service on 27/6/1994. 2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that even though the defendants had resigned from service as a teachers on 28/5/1994, which resignation was accepted by the competent authority of the school on 27/6/1994, the defendants had filed an FIR No. 161/1994 under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC in police station Srikaranpur levelling allegations against the plaintiff Subhash Chand that resignation of the defendant teachers was forged and got notarized by Notary Public at Sriganganagar and getting said news of forged resignation published in two newspapers; `Prashant Jyoti' on 27/7/1994 and `Pratap Kesari' on 28/7/1994 causing loss of goodwill and mental agony to the plaintiff - Subhash Chand and when police after investigation had submitted negative final report on 4/8/1994 itself, the defendants did not take any action before the superior courts after such negative final report was accepted by the learned trial court and, therefore, the defendants were liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. 3. The courts below have decreed the suit and awarded the damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- each, which judgments are sought to be assailed by the defendants in the present revision petitions before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants, Mr. G.J. Gupta submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove that the news in the newspapers were got published by the defendants and thus, the plaintiff failed to discharge its burden and secondly the defendants had reasonable and probable cause for filing the FIR in question and, therefore, cannot be maliciously prosecuted and courts below have erred in granting decree against defendants, which deserve to be set aside. He relied upon the decisions in the case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam & Ors. - 1999 AIR SCW 3578 & Amar Singh v. Smt. Bhagwati - 2000 (4) WLC (Raj.) 202 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. He relied upon the decisions in the case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam & Ors. - 1999 AIR SCW 3578 & Amar Singh v. Smt. Bhagwati - 2000 (4) WLC (Raj.) 202 . 5. On the other hand, Mr. Abhinav Jain, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff respondent relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Renuka Das v. Maya Ganguly & Anr. - 2010 AIR SCW 498 & M/s Bhanwarlal Dugar & ors. v. Bridhichand Pannalal & Ors. - 2010 AIR SCW 4288 urged that against the concurrent findings interference by the revisional court is improper and re-appreciation of evidence cannot be made by the revisional court. He further submitted that the decree passed by the courts below is proper, justified and same is not required to be interfered with in the present revision petitions. He submitted that the resignation letters of the defendant teachers were notarized was sufficient proof of their having given such resignation letters and, thus, FIR was deliberately filed by them to maliciously prosecute the plaintiff - Subhash Chand, Head Master, who in his individual capacity was not even responsible for accepting the resignation letters and it was for the school management to do so. Even the police had given negative final report, which became final and great loss of goodwill and mental agony occurred to the plaintiff and, therefore, damages have been rightly awarded by the courts below. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the present revision petitions filed by the defendant teachers have no force and same deserve to the dismissed. 7. The evidence cannot be re-appreciated in revisional jurisdiction as is well settled in various Supreme Court decisions including the judgments relied upon by the respondent plaintiff. The evidence on record prima facie indicates that the resignation letters were duly notarized even though at Sriganganagar though the school is situated at Srikaranpur, which is stated to be about 50 kms away, the presumption is that such resignation letters were duly signed by the defendant teachers concerned in the presence of Notary Public and, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the defendant petitioners that the same were false and forged documents cannot be accepted. The fact that the defendant teachers did not pursue the criminal action against the negative final report given by the investigating officer after the same was accepted by the trial court also goes against the defendants. The publication in the newspapers of the FIR certainly can be believed to have caused loss of reputation and mental harassment to the plaintiff Subhash Chand, Head Master. The damages quantified on the basis of plaint appears to be just and reasonable. Therefore, the plaintiff has discharged his burden in law in claiming the relief of damages in the said suit for malicious prosecution. 8. The concurrent decrees of the two courts below by well reasoned and detailed judgments on the basis of evidence available on record, in the opinion of this court, are not required to be interfered with in the present revision petitions filed by the defendants. 9. Consequently, both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed and same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.Revision Dismissed. *******