JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, the aforementioned RFAs, as well as, the, cross objections, arise from, a common verdict, pronounced by the learned Addl. District Judge, Solan, H.P., upon, Civil Suit No. 24-S/1 of 1995/94, hence, they are, all amenable for a common verdict, being rendered thereon. 2. Both the afore RFAs bearing RFA No. 230 of 2008, and, RFA No. 253 of 2008, stand directed, against a verdict pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, upon, Civil Suit No.24/S/1 of 1995/94, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- along with costs, stood determined, vis-avis, the plaintiff, arising from the defendants, maliciously prosecuting, harassing, humiliating, and, diminishing, his reputation in society, (ii) and, liability for liquidation, of, the afore compensation amount, was, jointly, and, severally fastened upon, defendant No.1, and, upon, defendant No.2. Moreover, through, cross objections, bearing CO No. 319 of 2009, as, stand instituted within RFA No.230 of 2008, hence, therethrough, the cross-objector/plaintiff, seeks enhancement, of, compensation amount, as, determined, vis-a-vis, him, and, obviously beyond the one, as, is assessed, vis-a-vis, him under, the impugned verdict. 3. The commission of tort, of, malicious prosecution, against the plaintiff, by, co-defendants, (i) is, rested, upon, co-defendant No.2, without any lawful authority, ingressing into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, (ii) and, his making unlawful seizure, of, timber stacked therein, (iii) and, thereafter his unlawfully arresting the accused, and, parading him, in, the bazar, (iv) whereupon, his status being diminished in the society, (v) and, all being preeminently sparked, from, the Investigating Officer concerned, making a proposal, for, closing the investigations, against, the plaintiff, and, the afore proposal also being accepted, by, the learned trial Court concerned, (vi) thereupon, all the afore misfeasance’s, and, malfeasances ascribed, vis-a-vis, co defendant No.2, being ipso facto construable, hence, to be proven, (vii) and, it is further pleaded that hence all the afore misdeeds or misdoings, rather acquiring, the, taints of invention, and, also being ingrained with malafides, hence, the plaintiff being entitled, to, recovery of the averred amount, as, monetary damages, given his being maliciously prosecuted, hence, by the defendants. 4. The entire substratum of the lis, engaging the contesting defendants, is, rested, upon, whether in codefendant No.2, making, ingressing(s) into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, his holding or not holding, a, validly issued search warrants rather by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. 4. The entire substratum of the lis, engaging the contesting defendants, is, rested, upon, whether in codefendant No.2, making, ingressing(s) into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, his holding or not holding, a, validly issued search warrants rather by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, contends, that, in the ingressing into the homestead, of the plaintiff, rather by, co-defendant No.2, in purported discharge of his official duties, for his making seizure, of, the purportedly illicit timber, stored, and, stacked therein, his making, a, stark departure, from, the mandate, of, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., (i) arising, from, co-defendant No.2, despite being enjoined, to, for the relevant purpose, hence hold, the, apt validly issued search warrants, from, the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, his not, at the relevant time hence holding, it, hence, he was neither competent nor obviously he could make any valid ingress onto the homestead, of, the plaintiff. However, for the reasons, to be, assigned hereinafter, the afore submission, is, rather made falteringly (ii) as it stands generated, from, the counsel for the plaintiff, being unmindful, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "165. Search by police officer. (1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place with the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station. (2) A police officer proceeding under sub- section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person. (2) A police officer proceeding under sub- section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person. (3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the place to be searched, and so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place. (4) The provisions of this Code as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 100 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section. (5) Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate." wherein in sub-section (a) thereof, for reasons, to be recorded in writing, the Investigating Officer concerned, is, bestowed rather with statutory empowerments, to enter into the apt homestead hence falling, within, the limits of the jurisdiction, of, the police station concerned, for, his thereafter being facilitated to locate, such incriminatory thing, as, is stacked or stored therein, (b) and, upon scribed valid reasons, unfolding formation, of, an objective opinion, by him, that the afore location, of, incriminatory material or thing, being a dire necessity, and, also given its location/discovery, rather not warranting any undue delay being caused, hence for the relevant purpose, (c) whereupon, his not being debarred, to, even without any validly issued search warrants, to, ingress into the relevant homestead. The afore mandate, is, encapsulated in sub-section (c) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., is, an explicit, and, candid statutory exception, to, the mandate borne in Section 100, of, the Cr.P.C., as, sub Section (4) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., even though, rather makes applicable all, the, general provisions, appertaining, to search warrants, as are, borne in Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., (d) yet even when the afore explicit statutory exception, vis-a-vis, the latter provisions, though, does not prohibit, the, application, of, the apt general provisions, as, borne, in, Section 100 Cr.P.C., nor does oust or exclude them, (e) unless, the apt statutory peremptory condition, hence borne in Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., for, rather dispensing with the mandate, of, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., is/are not satiated, (f) whereas, the apposite statutory condition, as the ones borne in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., being hereat evidently satiated, hence, (g) thereupon, the explicit mandate borne in sub-section (1) of Section 165, of, the Cr.P.C., upon evident satiation, of, all the requisite ingredients, borne therein, does not, enjoin, upon, the Investigating Officer concerned, to, prior, to his making the search, of, the relevant house rather for his making, the, relevant discoveries, therefrom, to, thereat hence necessarily possess rather, the, apposite valid search warrants, hence issued, by the learned Magistrate concerned... 5. Since, documentary material, for, ensuring therethrough, the, meteings, of, satiation, vis-a-vis, all the afore requisite ingredients, borne in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., is comprised, in, Ex. Dx, (i) thereupon, the search, of, the homestead of the plaintiff, even though, carried by defendant No.2, and, without, in contemporaneity thereto, his hence holding the search warrants, hence, issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, does not, either suffer from any legal infirmity, nor is construable to be an invalid search, nor also the plaintiff, can espouse, that qua there being any commission, of, tort, of, malfeasance or misfeasance, hence, by defendant No.2, purportedly comprised, in his untenably ingressing into the homestead of the plaintiff, rather for locating, the, incriminatory illicit wood, hence, stacked or stored therein. 6. 6. Even though, the learned trial Court, had meted credence, to the deposition of PW-3 concerned, and, had proceeded, to conclude, qua misfeasance’s being committed, by co-defendant No.2, in his discharging, the, apt public duties, (i) yet for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the learned trial Court, has not, appropriately rather appraised, the apt entire documentary evidence, and, rather, wherefrom no conclusion, can be erected qua co-defendant No.2, hence in discharge, of, his public duties, and, upon his entering into, the, homestead, of, the plaintiff, his nursing any active malafides, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, nor any conclusion can be recorded, qua his, inventing or fabricating, the case against the plaintiff, nor also any damage qua his reputation, in, the society being diminished, upon, his being purportedly maliciously prosecuted, hence, by the defendants. The documentary evidence, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, stacking, the, illicitly felled timber, in his homestead, is, unfolded, by Ex.PW8/A, (i) wherein the descriptions, and, sizes, of, the timber qua wherewith, he held, a, valid authorization, for, storing it, are, rather contra distinct, vis-a-vis, the sizes, and, measurements, of, timber, as, described in Ex. D-1. However, even if, there is/are hence, emerging, the, apt contradistinctivities, inter se, the measurements, and, sizes of timber qua wherewith, a, valid, permit borne, in Ex. PW8/A stood issued, qua the plaintiff, and, vis-a-vis, the ones depicted in Ex. D-1, (i) yet the afore contradistinctivities, were amenable, for subsidence or would become subsumed, upon, the, plaintiff rendering, an, explanation, to, defendant No.2, and, it emanating in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the seizure of timber, borne in Ex. D-1, and, it appertaining qua the afore difference, in, the sizes, and, dimensions, as, unraveled, in the afore exhibits, being, a, sequel of his converting, the, timber, qua wherewith, a valid permit borne in Ex.PW8/A, stood issued, into the sizes depicted, in, Ex. D-1. However, the afore explanation, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, seizure, of, the timber, being made under memo Ex.D-1, is grossly amiss, and, also a perusal, of, bail application, borne in Ex. PW7/C, preferred by the plaintiff, before the learned trial Court concerned, besides a perusal of the application, borne in Ex.PW7/E, wherethrough, he sought the release of the timber, both omit, to make depictions, or, echoings qua the afore contradistinctivities, being sparked, upon, after issuance, of, Ex.PW8/A, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the latter proceeding to convert them, into, the sizes, and, measurements, as, embodied, in, Ex. D-1. D-1. The effects thereof, leads to a firm conclusion qua the timber seized, through, Ex. D-1, not holding any nexus with Ex.DW8/A, rather the timber seized, through Ex. D-1 being construable, to be hence seizure, of, illicitly felled wood, and, further consequential effects thereof, are, qua (a) the arrest of the accused being neither malafide, nor invented; (b) the seizure made through Ex. D-1 also being construable to be not ingrained with any malafides, and, of, vices of inventions, (c), and, the afore purported misfeasance, and, malfeasance, of, defendant No.2 rather not acquiring, any, aura of truth, rather codefendant No.2, upon, a valid information qua the relevant fact, and, also after his, vis-a-vis, the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., hence ensuring compliance therewith, his, making a lawful ingress into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, and, furthermore, nor the arrest of the plaintiff, arising, from, the seizure, of, the illicit timber, being, construable to be stained, with, any illegality nor any compensation, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, for his being purportedly maliciously prosecuted, is, hence assessable. 7. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector/plaintiff/respondent, has contended with much vigour, before this Court, that, the omission, on the part of defendant No.2, to ensure, that, at the instance of the plaintiff, his, making identification of the spot, in, the forest, wherefrom the plaintiff rather illicitly felled the seized timber, rather, casting a suspicion, vis-a-vis, the preparation of Ex. D-1, (a) and, he further contends that the afore omission being construable, to tantamount, to, co-defendant No.2, hence, carrying a deep malice, and, his inventing the apposite seizure, of, timber, and, his also malafidely arresting the plaintiff. The afore submission, is, unacceptable to this Court, as, given the preparation of Ex. D-1, occurring in the presence, of, the plaintiff, and, also when in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the preparation of Ex. D-1, the, requisite collations, as, appertaining, to, the apposite sizes, and, dimensions, of, timber, respectively borne in Ex. PW8/A, and, in Ex. D-1, rather also occurring, (b) per se thereupon, co-defendant No.2, could aptly bonafidely conclude qua the timber seized, through Ex. D-1, occurring in the presence, of, the plaintiff, and, also when in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the preparation of Ex. D-1, the, requisite collations, as, appertaining, to, the apposite sizes, and, dimensions, of, timber, respectively borne in Ex. PW8/A, and, in Ex. D-1, rather also occurring, (b) per se thereupon, co-defendant No.2, could aptly bonafidely conclude qua the timber seized, through Ex. D-1 being a sequel of the plaintiff, hence, illicitly felling them, from, the forest concerned, dehors any purported omission, of co-defendant, to, ensure at, the instance, of the, plaintiff, the, identification of the spot, in the forest, wherefrom, the plaintiff had illicitly felled, the, timber qua wherewith Ex. D-1, hence, stood drawn. 6. For the reasons, recorded hereinabove, both the RFAs bearing RFA No. 230 of 2008, and, RFA No. 253 of 2008, are allowed, whereas, Cross-objections No. 319 of 2009, are dismissed. In sequel, the judgment, and, decree, rendered by the learned trial Court, upon, Civil Suit No. 24-S/1 of 1995/94 is set-aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, is, dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Since, the aforementioned RFAs, as well as, the, cross objections, arise from, a common verdict, pronounced by the learned Addl. District Judge, Solan, H.P., upon, Civil Suit No. 24-S/1 of 1995/94, hence, they are, all amenable for a common verdict, being rendered thereon. 2. Both the afore RFAs bearing RFA No. 230 of 2008, and, RFA No. 253 of 2008, stand directed, against a verdict pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, upon, Civil Suit No.24/S/1 of 1995/94, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- along with costs, stood determined, vis-avis, the plaintiff, arising from the defendants, maliciously prosecuting, harassing, humiliating, and, diminishing, his reputation in society, (ii) and, liability for liquidation, of, the afore compensation amount, was, jointly, and, severally fastened upon, defendant No.1, and, upon, defendant No.2. Moreover, through, cross objections, bearing CO No. 319 of 2009, as, stand instituted within RFA No.230 of 2008, hence, therethrough, the cross-objector/plaintiff, seeks enhancement, of, compensation amount, as, determined, vis-a-vis, him, and, obviously beyond the one, as, is assessed, vis-a-vis, him under, the impugned verdict. 3. Moreover, through, cross objections, bearing CO No. 319 of 2009, as, stand instituted within RFA No.230 of 2008, hence, therethrough, the cross-objector/plaintiff, seeks enhancement, of, compensation amount, as, determined, vis-a-vis, him, and, obviously beyond the one, as, is assessed, vis-a-vis, him under, the impugned verdict. 3. The commission of tort, of, malicious prosecution, against the plaintiff, by, co-defendants, (i) is, rested, upon, co-defendant No.2, without any lawful authority, ingressing into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, (ii) and, his making unlawful seizure, of, timber stacked therein, (iii) and, thereafter his unlawfully arresting the accused, and, parading him, in, the bazar, (iv) whereupon, his status being diminished in the society, (v) and, all being preeminently sparked, from, the Investigating Officer concerned, making a proposal, for, closing the investigations, against, the plaintiff, and, the afore proposal also being accepted, by, the learned trial Court concerned, (vi) thereupon, all the afore misfeasance’s, and, malfeasances ascribed, vis-a-vis, co defendant No.2, being ipso facto construable, hence, to be proven, (vii) and, it is further pleaded that hence all the afore misdeeds or misdoings, rather acquiring, the, taints of invention, and, also being ingrained with malafides, hence, the plaintiff being entitled, to, recovery of the averred amount, as, monetary damages, given his being maliciously prosecuted, hence, by the defendants. 4. The entire substratum of the lis, engaging the contesting defendants, is, rested, upon, whether in codefendant No.2, making, ingressing(s) into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, his holding or not holding, a, validly issued search warrants rather by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, contends, that, in the ingressing into the homestead, of the plaintiff, rather by, co-defendant No.2, in purported discharge of his official duties, for his making seizure, of, the purportedly illicit timber, stored, and, stacked therein, his making, a, stark departure, from, the mandate, of, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., (i) arising, from, co-defendant No.2, despite being enjoined, to, for the relevant purpose, hence hold, the, apt validly issued search warrants, from, the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, his not, at the relevant time hence holding, it, hence, he was neither competent nor obviously he could make any valid ingress onto the homestead, of, the plaintiff. However, for the reasons, to be, assigned hereinafter, the afore submission, is, rather made falteringly (ii) as it stands generated, from, the counsel for the plaintiff, being unmindful, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "165. Search by police officer. (1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place with the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station. (2) A police officer proceeding under sub- section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person. (3) If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the place to be searched, and so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place. (4) The provisions of this Code as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 100 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section. (4) The provisions of this Code as to search-warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 100 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section. (5) Copies of any record made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate." wherein in sub-section (a) thereof, for reasons, to be recorded in writing, the Investigating Officer concerned, is, bestowed rather with statutory empowerments, to enter into the apt homestead hence falling, within, the limits of the jurisdiction, of, the police station concerned, for, his thereafter being facilitated to locate, such incriminatory thing, as, is stacked or stored therein, (b) and, upon scribed valid reasons, unfolding formation, of, an objective opinion, by him, that the afore location, of, incriminatory material or thing, being a dire necessity, and, also given its location/discovery, rather not warranting any undue delay being caused, hence for the relevant purpose, (c) whereupon, his not being debarred, to, even without any validly issued search warrants, to, ingress into the relevant homestead. The afore mandate, is, encapsulated in sub-section (c) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., is, an explicit, and, candid statutory exception, to, the mandate borne in Section 100, of, the Cr.P.C., as, sub Section (4) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., even though, rather makes applicable all, the, general provisions, appertaining, to search warrants, as are, borne in Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., (d) yet even when the afore explicit statutory exception, vis-a-vis, the latter provisions, though, does not prohibit, the, application, of, the apt general provisions, as, borne, in, Section 100 Cr.P.C., nor does oust or exclude them, (e) unless, the apt statutory peremptory condition, hence borne in Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., for, rather dispensing with the mandate, of, Section 100 of the Cr.P.C., is/are not satiated, (f) whereas, the apposite statutory condition, as the ones borne in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., being hereat evidently satiated, hence, (g) thereupon, the explicit mandate borne in sub-section (1) of Section 165, of, the Cr.P.C., upon evident satiation, of, all the requisite ingredients, borne therein, does not, enjoin, upon, the Investigating Officer concerned, to, prior, to his making the search, of, the relevant house rather for his making, the, relevant discoveries, therefrom, to, thereat hence necessarily possess rather, the, apposite valid search warrants, hence issued, by the learned Magistrate concerned... 5. Since, documentary material, for, ensuring therethrough, the, meteings, of, satiation, vis-a-vis, all the afore requisite ingredients, borne in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., is comprised, in, Ex. Dx, (i) thereupon, the search, of, the homestead of the plaintiff, even though, carried by defendant No.2, and, without, in contemporaneity thereto, his hence holding the search warrants, hence, issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, does not, either suffer from any legal infirmity, nor is construable to be an invalid search, nor also the plaintiff, can espouse, that qua there being any commission, of, tort, of, malfeasance or misfeasance, hence, by defendant No.2, purportedly comprised, in his untenably ingressing into the homestead of the plaintiff, rather for locating, the, incriminatory illicit wood, hence, stacked or stored therein. 6. 6. Even though, the learned trial Court, had meted credence, to the deposition of PW-3 concerned, and, had proceeded, to conclude, qua misfeasance’s being committed, by co-defendant No.2, in his discharging, the, apt public duties, (i) yet for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the learned trial Court, has not, appropriately rather appraised, the apt entire documentary evidence, and, rather, wherefrom no conclusion, can be erected qua co-defendant No.2, hence in discharge, of, his public duties, and, upon his entering into, the, homestead, of, the plaintiff, his nursing any active malafides, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, nor any conclusion can be recorded, qua his, inventing or fabricating, the case against the plaintiff, nor also any damage qua his reputation, in, the society being diminished, upon, his being purportedly maliciously prosecuted, hence, by the defendants. The documentary evidence, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, stacking, the, illicitly felled timber, in his homestead, is, unfolded, by Ex.PW8/A, (i) wherein the descriptions, and, sizes, of, the timber qua wherewith, he held, a, valid authorization, for, storing it, are, rather contra distinct, vis-a-vis, the sizes, and, measurements, of, timber, as, described in Ex. D-1. However, even if, there is/are hence, emerging, the, apt contradistinctivities, inter se, the measurements, and, sizes of timber qua wherewith, a, valid, permit borne, in Ex. PW8/A stood issued, qua the plaintiff, and, vis-a-vis, the ones depicted in Ex. D-1, (i) yet the afore contradistinctivities, were amenable, for subsidence or would become subsumed, upon, the, plaintiff rendering, an, explanation, to, defendant No.2, and, it emanating in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the seizure of timber, borne in Ex. D-1, and, it appertaining qua the afore difference, in, the sizes, and, dimensions, as, unraveled, in the afore exhibits, being, a, sequel of his converting, the, timber, qua wherewith, a valid permit borne in Ex.PW8/A, stood issued, into the sizes depicted, in, Ex. D-1. However, the afore explanation, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, seizure, of, the timber, being made under memo Ex.D-1, is grossly amiss, and, also a perusal, of, bail application, borne in Ex. PW7/C, preferred by the plaintiff, before the learned trial Court concerned, besides a perusal of the application, borne in Ex.PW7/E, wherethrough, he sought the release of the timber, both omit, to make depictions, or, echoings qua the afore contradistinctivities, being sparked, upon, after issuance, of, Ex.PW8/A, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, the latter proceeding to convert them, into, the sizes, and, measurements, as, embodied, in, Ex. D-1. D-1. The effects thereof, leads to a firm conclusion qua the timber seized, through, Ex. D-1, not holding any nexus with Ex.DW8/A, rather the timber seized, through Ex. D-1 being construable, to be hence seizure, of, illicitly felled wood, and, further consequential effects thereof, are, qua (a) the arrest of the accused being neither malafide, nor invented; (b) the seizure made through Ex. D-1 also being construable to be not ingrained with any malafides, and, of, vices of inventions, (c), and, the afore purported misfeasance, and, malfeasance, of, defendant No.2 rather not acquiring, any, aura of truth, rather codefendant No.2, upon, a valid information qua the relevant fact, and, also after his, vis-a-vis, the mandate of sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., hence ensuring compliance therewith, his, making a lawful ingress into the homestead, of, the plaintiff, and, furthermore, nor the arrest of the plaintiff, arising, from, the seizure, of, the illicit timber, being, construable to be stained, with, any illegality nor any compensation, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, for his being purportedly maliciously prosecuted, is, hence assessable. 7. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the cross-objector/plaintiff/respondent, has contended with much vigour, before this Court, that, the omission, on the part of defendant No.2, to ensure, that, at the instance of the plaintiff, his, making identification of the spot, in, the forest, wherefrom the plaintiff rather illicitly felled the seized timber, rather, casting a suspicion, vis-a-vis, the preparation of Ex. D-1, (a) and, he further contends that the afore omission being construable, to tantamount, to, co-defendant No.2, hence, carrying a deep malice, and, his inventing the apposite seizure, of, timber, and, his also malafidely arresting the plaintiff. The afore submission, is, unacceptable to this Court, as, given the preparation of Ex. D-1, occurring in the presence, of, the plaintiff, and, also when in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the preparation of Ex. D-1, the, requisite collations, as, appertaining, to, the apposite sizes, and, dimensions, of, timber, respectively borne in Ex. PW8/A, and, in Ex. D-1, rather also occurring, (b) per se thereupon, co-defendant No.2, could aptly bonafidely conclude qua the timber seized, through Ex. D-1, occurring in the presence, of, the plaintiff, and, also when in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the preparation of Ex. D-1, the, requisite collations, as, appertaining, to, the apposite sizes, and, dimensions, of, timber, respectively borne in Ex. PW8/A, and, in Ex. D-1, rather also occurring, (b) per se thereupon, co-defendant No.2, could aptly bonafidely conclude qua the timber seized, through Ex. D-1 being a sequel of the plaintiff, hence, illicitly felling them, from, the forest concerned, dehors any purported omission, of co-defendant, to, ensure at, the instance, of the, plaintiff, the, identification of the spot, in the forest, wherefrom, the plaintiff had illicitly felled, the, timber qua wherewith Ex. D-1, hence, stood drawn. 6. For the reasons, recorded hereinabove, both the RFAs bearing RFA No. 230 of 2008, and, RFA No. 253 of 2008, are allowed, whereas, Cross-objections No. 319 of 2009, are dismissed. In sequel, the judgment, and, decree, rendered by the learned trial Court, upon, Civil Suit No. 24-S/1 of 1995/94 is set-aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein, is, dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All