Malicious prosecution requires proof of malice; police action under statutory powers did not create civil liability here.

An action for malicious prosecution requires proof of malice, meaning an improper or indirect motive in instituting proceedings. On the facts, the Railway authorities laid the matter before police, an inquiry was made, and a prima facie offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code was honestly believed to exist; no evidence showed ill-feeling or ulterior motive, so the malicious prosecution claim failed. The Secretary of State was also not civilly liable for torts committed by police officers acting under statutory powers, and no broader question of governmental liability needed to be decided on those facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution was malicious so as to sustain an action for malicious prosecution; (ii) Whether the Secretary of State was civilly liable for the acts of police officers acting under statutory powers.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution was malicious so as to sustain an action for malicious prosecution.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the Railway authorities placed the facts before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who caused an inquiry to be made and honestly formed the view that a prima facie case under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code existed. Malice in this tort requires an improper or indirect motive in instituting the proceedings, and there was no proof of any ill-feeling or ulterior motive on the part of the prosecutor.

Conclusion: The necessary element of malice was not established, and the claim for malicious prosecution failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Secretary of State was civilly liable for the acts of police officers acting under statutory powers.

Analysis: The prosecution was instituted by police officers performing duties imposed by legislation, and the authority relied on showed that the Secretary of State was not liable in civil damages for tortious acts committed by police officers in the exercise of such statutory powers. In view of that position, it was unnecessary to determine the broader question of governmental liability for all acts of servants and agents.

Conclusion: The Secretary of State was not civilly liable on the facts proved.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the essential ingredient of malicious prosecution was absent and the defendant was not liable for the police action complained of.

Ratio Decidendi: An action for malicious prosecution cannot succeed unless malice is proved, and the Government is not civilly liable for acts done by police officers in the exercise of statutory powers merely because the prosecution was initiated on facts placed before them by government servants.

---