Case Analysis

Case Analysis of Kasturi Lal v. State of U.P., 1964

By

Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.[1]

Structure

Facts

There was a firm named M/s. Kasturi Lal and Ralia Ram. Ralia Ram was one of its partners. On the 20th September, 1947 Ralia Ram arrived at Meerut by the Frontier Mail about midnight. He went to Meerut 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 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 consisted of gold, and silver, were seized from him and kept in police custody. The police officer under law were supposed to keep the seized gold and silver under lock and key but it was kept in Malkhana under the charge of one Head Constable, Md. Amir, who misappropriated gold and fled to Pakistan.  On the 21st September, 1947 he was released on bail, and some time thereafter the silver seized from him was returned to him but not the gold. 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 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. He brought the action against the State of Uttar Pradesh for loss of his asset due to negligence of the police.

Issues

  1. 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.
  2. 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

P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.

  1. The distinction drawn by Peacock C.J. in Peninsular case between sovereign and non-sovereign function of the State, in determining its liability in tort, was accepted.
  2. The question arose was that if a tortious act is committed by a public servant, giving rise to damages. Then it must be seen, if the act was in discharge of statutory functions of the state by the public servant. In such case, the action for damages will not lie.
  3. However, if the tortious act was committed in discharge of duties not assigned to public servant by any sovereign power, the action for damages would lie.
  4. Thus, in this case, Supreme Court accepted the principle as laid down by Barnes Peacock C.J. in Peninsular case of 1861 and held that the Government would not be liable for the tortious act committed by its servants in course of exercising sovereign functions.

Disposition: In favour of State

 

[1] Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., 1964 SCC OnLine SC 38.

Related posts