021-NLR-NLR-V-48-KARUPPEN-Appellant-and-DORAISAMY-Respondent.pdf
DIAS J.—Karuppen v. Doraisamy
65
1946Present: Dias J.
KARUPPEN, Appellant, and DORAISAMY, Respondent.
215—C. R. Hatton, 5,682.
Tort—Action for malicious arrest—Circumstances when it will not lie.
No action for damages for malicious arrest will lie where the defendanthad not in any way procured the arrest of the plaintiff and the arrestof the plaintiff was the act of the police which was uninfluenced by thedefendant.
A PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Hatton.
P. Malalgoda, for the plaintiff, appellant.
No appearance for the defendant, respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
October 23, 1946. Dias J.—
This is an action for damages for an alleged malicious arrest. OnNovember 27, 1945, the defendant complained to the police that onNovember 25 “ some person or persons unknown ” had forced open thedoor of his line room on Strathspey Estate and had committed theft ofa sum of Rs. 100 in cash. The police after an investigation producedbefore the Magistrate two “ suspects ”, namely the plaintiff and anotherman, and moved for their remand pending completion of the policeinquiry.
On December 2, 1945, the police made a further report setting outthe results of their inquiry. From this it appears that the son of thedefendant, Thangarasu, aged seven, had stated that on the day inquestion this defendant and the other suspect who are both labourers onthe estate, required a tea basket and that when the boy informed themthat there was such a basket in his father’s room, these men had borroweda knife and had forced open the door of the defendant’s room and a littlelater walked away with the basket. The boy did not purport to witnessany theft. It is obvious that the police did not pay much credence tothe defendant’s story that he had kept money in a broken trunk parti-cularly as there was a better trunk in the room. They said they werenot proceeding with the case against the two suspects. The defendantwas then asked by the Magistrate whether he desired to proceed with thecase, and on his replying in the negative, the defendant and his co-suspect were discharged, after having been on remand from November 27until December 4, 1945. This is the plaintiff’s cause of action.
3
68Perera v. Municipal Council of Colombo.
It is common ground that at no time.'did‘.the defendant make anyactual charge against this plaintiff. All he- baid was that he suspectedhim. His information is wholly based on tyhattlieboy of seven told him.
If a father on returning to his lines is told by his little son that twomen had on the pretext of looking for an empty tea basket broken thehasp of the door of the line room, and it was then discovered that somemoney which was in the room was lost, surely there is reasonable andprobable cause for the father to tell the police that he suspected thatthose two men had broken into his room and committed theft ?
No actual spite or ill will towards the plaintiff has been alleged orproved against the defendant. There ib no proof that the defendant inany way interfered with the police investigation. No doubt the policeofficers requested the defendant to produce his informant, but nothingturns on that. When he was asked if he wished to carry on with theprosecution, the defendant did not wish to do so.
I can find no evidence here to prove that the defendant set the policein action maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. Icannot hold that the defendant in any way procured the arrest of theplaintiff. See McKerrcn p. 24.7. The arrest was the act of the policewhich was uninfluenced by the defendant, who only stated that hesuspected the two men who had forced their way into his house and leftthe police to do what was necessary. It is said that the complaint aboutthe loss of the money is false. The Commissioner has dealt with thatpoint and I cannot say that he has come to a wrong conclusion.
The judge has, in the result, reached a correct conclusion.
I dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.