Malicious prosecution suit deemed maintainable under Limitation Act 1963

The Court held that the suit for malicious prosecution was filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The arguments that the suit was barred by Section 155(2) of the Customs Act were rejected, as this provision does not apply to suits. Therefore, the suit was deemed maintainable, and the petition challenging the Trial Court's decision was dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the suit's adjudication.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation period for filing a suit for malicious prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to suits.
3. Calculation of limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Limitation Period for Filing a Suit for Malicious Prosecution Under the Customs Act, 1962

The primary question was the limitation period for filing a suit for malicious prosecution against customs authorities/officials under the Customs Act, 1962. The Plaintiff was intercepted and arrested by customs authorities on 19th November 2002, and later acquitted on 11th April 2007. The suit for malicious prosecution was filed on 11th April 2008. The Defendants argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, which prescribes a three-month period from the accrual of the cause of action. The Plaintiff contended that the suit was within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows one year from the date of acquittal.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to Suits

Section 155(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, was scrutinized to determine if it applies to suits. The provision reads: "No proceeding other than a suit shall be commenced against the Central Government or any officer of the Government or a local authority for anything purporting to be done in pursuance of this Act without giving the Central Government or such officer a month’s previous notice in writing of the intended proceeding and of the cause thereof, or after the expiration of three months from the accrual of such cause." The Court concluded that Section 155(2) does not apply to suits but to other proceedings. This interpretation was supported by precedents from the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and judgments from the Madras and Kerala High Courts, which clarified that the limitation and notice requirements under Section 155(2) are not applicable to suits.

Issue 3: Calculation of Limitation Period Under the Limitation Act, 1963

The Court then examined the limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963. According to Section 3, read with Entry 74 of the Schedule, the limitation period for filing a suit for malicious prosecution is one year from the date of acquittal or termination of prosecution. Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act specifies that the day from which the period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. Since the Plaintiff was acquitted on 11th April 2007, the limitation period commenced on 12th April 2007, making the last day to file the suit 11th April 2008. The Plaintiff filed the suit on 11th April 2008, thus within the one-year limitation period.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the suit for malicious prosecution was filed within the limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The arguments that the suit was barred by Section 155(2) of the Customs Act were rejected, as this provision does not apply to suits. Therefore, the suit was deemed maintainable, and the petition challenging the Trial Court's decision was dismissed. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the suit's adjudication.

---