PREPARED BY ANKIT SAHOO (1182018) ANKITA GURU(1182020)

NAME OF THE PARTIES BRIEF FACTS ISSUES ARISING ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE JUDGEMENT REFERAL CASES COMMENTS

APPELANT-KASTURI RALIA RAM JAIN RESPONDENT-STATE OF U.P

JUDGES-GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B., WANCHOO, K.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR MUDHOLKAR, J.R.

Ralia Ram was carrying gold and silver to be sold in the Meerut market was arrested by three police officers on the suspicion that he was carrying the stolen property. After release on bail silvers were handed over to him and he demanded for the gold which were taken into custody during his time of arrest. The gold was kept in malkhana under the charge of Md. Amir, the Head Constable of the police station. He misappropriated the gold and fled away to Pakistan on 17 October 1947. Kasturi Lal sued the state of Uttar Pradesh as the misappropriation of the gold seized by Md. Amir, which was done by him during of course of the employment.

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?

Arguments on the part of the appellants:

The plaintiff vis. Ralia Ram Jain argued that the act of the police officer related to his arrest in the mid night of 21st sept. was an act trespassing the power delegated by state to the police. The plaintiff argued before the court that U/S 165 of the U P police regulation act that property exceeding Rs. 100/- should be kept in a separate box in lock and key under the supervision of a prosecuting inspector in the Malkhana Moharrir. In this case the goods seized was kept under the supervision of Md. Amir who was a head constable of the police station .He fled to Pakistan with the gold and silver seized during the course of his employment. Thus under the rule of vicarious liability the state was liable.

ARGUMENT OF RESPONDENT:-

1. The defendant pleaded that arresting a person out of suspicion is not an act exceeding the power delegated to it. Further it was argued by the defendant that section 54(1)(iv)of the code of criminal procedure provides that any police officer ,without an order of a magistrate and without warrant ,arrest any person whose Possession anything is found which may reasonably suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having an offence with reference to such thing .It was under the provision Ralia Ram was arrested at mid night. After Ralia Ram was arrested and before his article were seized under exercise of power conferred on police officer US 550 of code.

2. The respondent argued that it take every necessary care of the goods of the plaintiff. But the goods were misappropriated by Md. Amir who was the constable of the kotwali police station and he had fled to Pakistan with the gold. It has further argued by the respondent that as Md. Amir while fleeing to Pakistan was not acting in the course of his employment so the defendant was not liable for the tortuous act of the servant under the rule of vicarious liability.

The Honorable Supreme Court therefore after analyzing various case laws had no difficulty in concluding that the claim of the appellant was not sustainable as the police was the employee of state who was having sovereign power. Accordingly the appeal of Ralia Ram was dismissed.

Vidyawati V. state of Rajasthan Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. The Secretary of State for India

IN MY VIEW THE JUDGEMENT WAS SATISFATORY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE:-

NOT

VERY

THE JUDGEMENT IS BASED ON THE COMMON LAW PRINCIPLE THAT KING CAN DO NO WRONG AND HE CANT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE WRONGFUL ACT COMMITED BY HIS EMPLOYEE. ANOTHER ASPECT OF THS JUDGEMENT WAS THAT IT WAS THE ATTRIBUTE OF SOVEREIGNTY THAT STATE CANT BE SUED IN ITS OWN COURT WITHOUT ITS OWN CONSENT.