https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277392 The Court held that there was no reasonable cause for the prosecution, but the District Loco. Superintendent was not directly responsible as the Police authorities initiated the proceedings. The defendant was not liable for the Police Officers' actions as the plaintiff did not allege their involvement. The plaintiff's attempt to amend the plaint to hold the Deputy Inspector General of Police accountable was rejected, as malice was found to be absent in the prosecution. The Secretary of State was not civilly liable for the Police Officers' actions in carrying out statutory duties. The appeal was dismissed with costs upheld. 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 The Court held that there was no reasonable cause for the prosecution, but the District Loco. Superintendent was not directly responsible as the Police authorities initiated the proceedings. The defendant was not liable for the Police Officers' actions as the plaintiff did not allege their involvement. The plaintiff's attempt to amend the plaint to hold the Deputy Inspector General of Police accountable was rejected, as malice was found to be absent in the prosecution. The Secretary of State was not civilly liable for the Police Officers' actions in carrying out statutory duties. The appeal was dismissed with costs upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Apr 1919 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277392