LexKASTURILAL RALIA RAM JAIN versus TIIE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c KASTURILAL RALIA RAM JAIN v. TIIE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH September.29, 1964 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 375 Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300(1)-State Liability for tortiou.- acts of its servants. Some police officers of the State seized gold from the appellant in exercise of their statutory powers, but were negligent in dealing with its safe custody. As a result of such negligence the gold was not returned to the appellant and so, he filed the suit against the State claiming the value of the gold. The suit was decreed by th• trial court but was dismissed by the Higb Court on appeal. In the appeal to the Supreme Court, HELD : The power to arrest a person, to search him, to seize pro- perty found with him, are powers conferred on specified officers by D ststutc and are powers which could be properly characterised as sovereign. powers. Therefore, though the negligent act was committed by the em- ployees of the respondent-State during the course of their employment,. the claim against the State could not be sustained, because, the employ- ment in question was of the category which could claim the special characteristic of sovereign power. [390 G-H; 391 A]. The P. & 0. Steam Navigation Co. v. The Secretary of State for E India, (1868-69) 5 Born. H.C.R. App. A. !, approved. The State of Rajasthan v. Must. Vidhyawati and another, [1962] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 989, distinguished. The passing of legislative enactments to regulate and control the liability of the State for the negligent acts of its servants, suggested [391 BJ. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1963. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 18, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 67 of 1950. M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan for P. Keshava Pillai, for G the appellant. H A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. The Judgment Qf the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar C. J. The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether the respondent, the State of Uttar Pradesh, is liable to compensate the appellant, M/s. Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain for the loss caused to it by the negligence of. the police officers employed by the reswndent. This question arises 376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1965] 1 s.c.R. A in this way. The appellant is a firm which deals in bullion and ether goods at Amritsar. It was duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Ralia Ram was one of its partners. On the 20th September, 1947 Ralia Ram arrived at Meerut by the Frontier Mail about midnight. His object in going to Mcerut was to sell gold, silver and other goods in the Meerut market. Whilst he was passing through the Chaupla Bazar with this object, he was taken into B custody by three police constables. His belongings were then searched and he was taken to the Kotwali Police Station. He was detained in the police lock-up there and his belongings which con- sisted of gold, weighing I 03 to/as 6 mashas and I ratti, and silver weighing 2 maunds and 6t seers, were seized from him and kept in C 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, he filed the present suit against the respondent in which he claimed a decree D that the gold seized from him should either be returned to him, or in the alternative, its value should be ordered to be paid to him. The al:emative claim thus made by him consisted of Rs. 11,075-10-0 as the price of the gold and Rs. 355 as interest b\' way of damages as well as future interest. This claim was resisted by the respondent on several grounds. It was urged that the respondent was not liable to return either the gold, or to pay its money value. The respondent alleged that the gold in question had been taken into custody by one Mohammad Amir, who was then the Head Constable, and it had been kept in E the police Malkhana under his charge. Mohd. Amir, however, F misappropriated the gold and fled away to Pakistan on the 17th October, 194 7. He had also misappropriated some other cash and articles deposited in the Malkhana before he left India. The res~ pendent furthe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.