Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR 1965 SC 1039, [1965] 1 SCR 375
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J. J.R. Mudholkar, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.
Date of Decision: 29.09.1964
FACTS: –
Ralia Ram, Partner in the appellant firm which deals in bullion and other goods at Amritsar. On the 20th September, 1947 Ralia Ram arrived at Meerut and his object was to sell gold, silver and other goods there. Whilst he was passing through, he was taken into custody by three police constables. His belongings were then searched and he was taken and was locked up in the police station. His belongings which consisted of gold and silver were seized from him and kept in police custody. On the 21st September, 1947 he was released on bail, and some time thereafter the silver seized from him was returned to him. Ralia Ram then made repeated demands for the return of the gold which had been seized from him, and since he could not recover the gold from the police officers as one of the police officers fled with the gold to Pakistan, therefore, he filed the present suit against the respondent.
ISSUES: –
- Whether the police officers in question were guilty of negligence in the matter of taking care of the gold which had been seized from Ralia Ram?
- Whether the respondent was liable to compensate the appellant for the loss caused to it by the negligence of the public servants employed by the respondent?
JUDGMENT: –
Since question one relates to the question of fact. In deciding, question one, Court examined various evidences which were relevant to decide the question under consideration. Court ruled that there can be no escape from the conclusion that the police officers were negligent in dealing with Ralia Ram’s property after it was seized from him. Not only was the property not kept in safe custody in the treasury, but the manner in which it was dealt with at the Malkhana shows gross negligence on the part of the police officers. A list of articles seized does not appear to have been made and there is no evidence that they were weighed either. It is true that these goods were misappropriated by Head Constable Mohd. Amir. Police officers were guilty of gross negligence in matter of taking care of the gold which had been seized from Ralia Ram in the light of the obligation imposed upon the Police Officers to take care of the goods seized under Regulation 165 and 166 of the UP Police Regulation.
Second question essentially falls to be considered under Article 300(1) of the Constitution. This article consists of three parts. The first part deals with the question about the form and the cause-title for a suit intended to be filed by or against the Government of India, or the Government of a State. The second part provides inter alia, that a State may sue or be sued in relation to its affairs in cases like those in which a corresponding Province might have sued or been sued if the Constitution had not been enacted. The third part of the article provides that it would be competent to the Parliament or the Legislature of a State to make appropriate provisions in regard to the topic covered by Article 300(1). Since no such law has been passed by the respondent in the present case, the question as to whether the respondent is liable to be sued for damages at the instance of the appellant, has to be determined by reference to another question and that is, whether such a suit would have been competent against the corresponding Province. This takes to the corresponding preceding provisions in the respective Constitution Acts of India; they are s. 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858, s. 32 of the Government of India Act, 1915 and s. 176 of the Government of India Act. 1935.
The first decision which is treated as a leading authority on this point was pronounced by the Supreme Court at Calcutta in 1861 in the case of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. The Secretary of State for India 5 B H.C.R. Appendix A, p. 1. Leaned Chief Justice Peacock enunciated a principle of law that “there is a great and clear distinction between acts done in the exercise of what are usually termed sovereign powers, and acts done in the conduct of undertakings which might be carried on by private individuals without having such powers delegated to them.” Where an act is done, or a contract is entered into, in the exercise of powers usually called sovereign powers; by which we mean powers which cannot be lawfully exercised except by sovereign, or private individual delegated by a sovereign to exercise them, no action will lie.” And, naturally it follows that where an act is done, or a contract is entered into, in the exercise of powers which cannot be called sovereign powers, action will lie.
If a tortious act is committed by a public servant and it gives the rise to a claim for damages, the question to ask is: was the tortious act committed by the public servant in discharge of statutory functions which are referable to, and ultimately based on, the delegation of the sovereign powers of the State to such public servant? If the answer is in the affirmative, the action for damages for loss caused by such tortious act will not lie. On the other hand, if the tortious act has been committed by a public servant in discharge of duties assigned to him not by virtue of the delegation of any sovereign power, an action for damages would lie. The act of the public servant committed by him during the course of his employment is, in this category of cases, an act of a servant who might have been employed by a private individual for the same purpose.
In this case, act of negligence was committed by the police officers while dealing with the property of Ralia Ram which they had seized in exercise of their statutory powers. Now, the power to arrest a person, to search him, and to seize property found with him, are powers conferred on the specified officers by statute and in the last analysis, they are powers which can be properly characterized as sovereign powers; and so, there is no difficulty in holding that the act which gave rise to the present claim for damages has been committed by the employee of the respondent during the course of its employment; but the employment in question being of the category which can claim the special characteristic of sovereign power, the claim cannot be sustained.
HELD: –
Police officers were negligent in discharge of their duties but there can be no claim sustained against the loss suffered by the Appellant due to the negligence of the Police officers because they were discharging their sovereign functions.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
