1. Peary Lal, a village Munsif and a zamindar who pays Rs. 500 and revenue, has been convicted of an offence under S. 219, I.P.C, in that on 16th July 1915 he maliciously pronounced a decree in a civil suit, Ram Lagan v. Biller, which he knew to be contrary to law. There seems to be no doubt that the accused had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Apparently the circle of this Munsif consisted of only twenty-two villages and the evidence is strong that Jagdispur, the village in which the defendant resided, was not one of those twenty-two and indeed was far remote from the circle over which the jurisdiction of this Munsif extended.
2. The learned Judge who convicted the appellant found that there was sufficient evidence to show that he acted maliciously. No definition of the word ‘maliciously’ has been pointed out to me so far as this Court is concerned, but there can be little doubt as to what the legal meaning of the word is. Bowen, L.J, in Mogul Steamship Company v. Me Gregor (1) says that the terms maliciously, wrongfully and injure are words all of which have accurate meanings well known to the law. Maliciously means and implies an intention to do an act which is wrongful to the detriment of another; and again Lord Blackburn in Reg v. Pembliton (2) says where any person wilfully does an act injurious to another without lawful excuse, he does it maliciously. Adopting this definition of the word in the present case, malicious pronouncement of the decision on the part of the accused has been established. I find no reason for interfering and I dismiss the appeal.
V.B/R.K
3. Appeal dismissed.