https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277392 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. en-us Fri, 25 Apr 1919 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Dec 2018 12:40:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277392 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Apr 1919 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277392