STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus CHALLA RAMKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 26-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
CHALLA RAMKRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. 
APRIL 26, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, Ji.] 
I.imitation Act, 1963 : Articles 72 and 113-Death of a prisoner caused 
in jail by some outsiders-Police officials involved in the conspira&y-Suit for 
compensation filed by family of the deceased against the State on account of 
negligence resulting in death of the deceased-Suit dismissed being ban-ed by 
limitation-A11icle 72 of the Act p1-escribing one year limitation period held 
applicable-High Court dec1-eed the suit-On appeal, Held : A11icle 72 is 
applicable only if the act or omission of a public officer pursuant to a statute 
is bonafide and itself is a to11 causing injury to the person claiming 
compensation-If act or omission is malafide then A1ticle 72 is not applica-
hie-Article 113, pmscribing three years limitation period will apply. 
Constitution oflndiu.: Articles 21 and300-Right to life under 'A.rticle 21 
is guaranteed to every person-Even a prisoner lodged in jail continues to 
enjoy right to life-State cannot violate it even under the garb of immunity in 
1-espect of sovereign acts as prvvided in A11icle 300. 
Respondent No. 1 and his father, involved in a criminal case, were 
remanded to judicial custody and were lodged in Jail. Respondent No. 1 
and his father informed the Inspector of Police that a conspiracy to kill 
them was going on and their lives were in danger. A representation regard-
ing the same was also sent by them to the Collector and the Home Minister. 
The Circle Inspector did not treat the matter seriously and inspite of the 
representations made by them neither adequate protection was provided 
to them; nor extra guards were put on duty. On the night of occurrence, 
between 5th and 6th of May 1977, a bomb was hurled at them and as a 
result of the bomb explosion father of Respondent No. 1 died. In his dying 
declaration, the deceased stated that he had information that a conspiracy 
to kill them in jail was hatched and Sub-Inspector of Police (DW -1) was a 
party to that conspiracy. Respondent No. 1, however, escaped with some 
injuries. He alongwith his mother and four brothers filed a suit against the 
State for a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs as damages on account of the negligence 
644 
..... .. 
~-
..... 
,, 
-+ 
) 
STATE v. C.R. REDDY 
645 
which resulted in the death of the deceased. The appellant State contested 
A 
the suit 0111 the ground of limitation and also on the ground of immunity 
from legal action in respect of its sovereign acts. Accepting the contentions, 
the trial C(Jlurt dismissed the suit. On appeal, High Court decreed the suit 
for a sum of Rs. 1,44,000 along with interest. Hence, the present appeal. 
The appellant State contended that the suit was barred by time as 
the time lill!lit provided by Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was one 
year only whereas the suit was filed after three years. The appellant also 
contended that maintenance of jails being a part of sovereign function of 
the State tht~ suit for compensation was not maintainable. The respondents 
contended that the period of limitation would be governed by Article 113 
of the Act as the nature of the suit was not covered by any other Article.of 
the Act and that the said Article prescribed a period of three years from 
the date on which the right to sue accrued. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Articles 72 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are ap· 
plicable to different situations. In order to attract Article 72, it is nec~ary 
that the suit must be for compensation for doing or for omitting to do an 
act in pursuance of any enactment in force at the relevant time. Hthe act or 
omission complained of is not alleged to be in pursuance of the statutory 
authority, this Article would not apply. This Article would be attracted to 
meet the situation where the public officer or public authority or, for that 
matter, a private person does an act under power conferred or deemed to 
be conferred by an Act of the Legislature by which injury is caused to an-
other person who invokes the jurisdiction of the court to claim compensa-
tion for that ac:t. Thus, where a public officer acting bona.fide under or in 
pursuance of the Act of Legislature commits a ''tort'', the action complained 
of would be governed by this Article which, however, would not protect a 
.,ublic officer acting malafide under colour of his office. The Article, as 
worded, doe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.