14.The law of torts talks independently of an action for false imprisonment and action for malicious prosecution. In Limitation Act also, Article 73 relates to false imprisonment and Article 74 pertains to malicious prosecution. For both, the period of limitation has been prescribed as one year. For the former, time begins to run when the imprisonment ends and for the latter, it begins to run when the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. The application of the rules relating to burden of proof would also be different. In Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharastra (1977) 1 SCC 133 , the Supreme Court approvingly quoted Phipson that in actions of malicious prosecution, it is upon the plaintiff to show not only that the defendant prosecuted him unsuccessfully, but also the absence of reasonable and probable cause; while in actions for false imprisonment, proof of the existence of reasonable cause is upon the defendant, since arrest, unlike prosecution, is prima facie a tort and demands justification. It has been noted in Ratanlal & Dhirajlal's “The Law of Torts” that if a person gets another arrested by police on a false complaint, he is liable for damages for false imprisonment. Where the prosecution also included arrest, in a suit for malicious prosecution, the burden of proof rests rather lightly on the plaintiff and when the onus shifts, the defendant has a heavy task to discharge.
