1 S.A.No.755/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.755 OF 2010. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 09.12.2010. 1. This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal. The plaintiffs had filed suit for compensation on account of malicious prosecution. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The appellate Court also dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Brahme, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Criminal prosecution was launched by the defendant without any reasonable and probable cause. The enmity has been brought on record which itself shows the 2 S.A.No.755/10 existence of malice. It is undisputed that the litigations are pending between the parties and it is just to harass the appellants, the Criminal prosecution was launched. According to the learned counsel, the Courts below ignored the concept of improper motive and the enmity between the parties itself constitutes malice. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments. Mere acquittal in a Criminal case does not ipso facto give a right to a party who has been acquitted to claim that the said Criminal prosecution is induced with malice. In Criminal case, the defendant could not produce the necessary evidence and as such it resulted in acquittal of the present appellants. There is nothing to substantiate that the Criminal prosecution was launched without any reasonable and probable cause. The malice in fact, and malice in law is not at all proved. Both the Courts on appreciation of the evidence led have come to a plausible conclusion. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal 3 S.A.No.755/10 is devoid of substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.09.12.2010. asp/office/sa755.10