KASTURI RALIA RAM V. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1965 SC1039

FACTS

• Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain (appellant) was a partner in a registered firm based in Amritsar which dealt in bullion.
• On September 20, 1947, the appellant traveled to Meerut with the intent of selling gold, silver, and other merchandise in the local market.
• While the appellant was passing through the market with his goods, he was intercepted by three police constables who took him into custody on the suspicion of possessing stolen goods.
• The police detained him at Kotwali police station, where they searched him and seized his belongings, including his gold and silver items, and kept them in police custody.
• After he was released on bail on September 21, 1947, he received only the silver items back, while the gold remained unreturned despite several requests by the appellant.
• In response to the situation, Kasturi Lal filed a suit against the state of Uttar Pradesh, seeking a decree ordering either the return of his gold or compensation for its monetary value.
• The monetary value of the gold sought by the appellant included Rs.11,075-10-0 as the price of the gold and Rs.335 as interest by way of damages as well as future interest.
• The state (respondent) claimed that it was not responsible, as a head constable named Mohammad Amir had fled to Pakistan on October 17, 1947, with the gold that belonged to the appellant, and the police had not been able to trace him despite multiple attempts to do so.
• Furthermore, the respondent pleaded that it was not a case of negligence of the police officers.

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

• The trial court passed a decree in favour of Kasturi Lal, ordering payment of Rs. 1143010-0 by the state.
• The state then appealed before the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in favour of the state.
• Subsequently, Kasturi Lal approached the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court.
• The Supreme Court upheld the decision given by the high court.

  ISSUES

1. Could the police officers be held liable for negligence for not exercising due care to safeguard Kasturi Lal’s belongings?
2. Is the state liable to compensate Kasturi Lal for the negligence of its officers and the subsequent loss of belongings suffered by him?

  RULE

1. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co.¹, negligence was defined as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.”
2. There are three “essential elements of negligence”² –
   • the defendant owed a legal duty of care to the plaintiff;
   • the defendant’s actions breached such a duty, and
   • the plaintiff suffered harm or damage as a result of such a breach. iii. “Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence.”³
3. Article 300^[1] of the Constitution of India describes the liability of the state.
4. Article 300-A^[2] reads – “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
5. In Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India^[3], a distinction was made between the acts done by the public servants in the delegated exercise of sovereign powers and acts done by them in the conduct of other activities. The state was held liable for the act of its officers as it was a nonsovereign function.
6.  In Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji^[4], it was held that the Government would be liable for torts committed while exercising sovereign powers, except in cases where the action in question constituted an act of State.

ANALYSIS

          1) Negligence of Police Officers: 

• The police owed a legal duty of care to Kasturi Lal upon seizing his belongings. They had a responsibility to ensure the safety of the goods, and that the goods are returned to him in the same condition, in accordance with the law.
• The fact that Mohammad Amir was able to take the goods out of the safe possession of the police and flee to Pakistan shows that the police failed to exercise reasonable care^[5].  

• Even after several requests by Kasturi Lal for the return of his gold, the police failed to respond and act adequately or investigate the circumstances of the disappearance of the property, which shows neglect in performing duties on the part of the police officers⁹. This indicates a breach of the duty of care that the police owed to Kasturi Lal.  

• This breach of duty of care by the police officers resulted in monetary loss to Kasturi Lal.

       2) Liability of the State:

• The act of the police officers – lack of supervision over seized property and failure to investigate the disappearance of the property – constitutes the tort of negligence. The state may be held liable for the tortious acts of its officers under Article 300 of the Constitution, provided that the tortious act arose from the exercise of non-sovereign power. 

• The act of safeguarding the property of an individual and returning it upon completion of the purpose for which it was taken is not a sovereign function.

CONCLUSION

The case identified a difference between acts committed by public servants in exercise of sovereign powers delegated to them, and acts committed by the public servants that do not arise out of discharge of sovereign powers. 

The court held that the police officers were not negligent in exercising their sovereign/ statutory powers. The power to search a person, arrest him, and seize his property under certain circumstances is authorised by statute and hence, it can be termed as a sovereign power. Therefore, the state was not held liable.

 However, the court failed to recognise that the duty of the police to safeguard the property seized by it, and to return the property to its rightful claimant did not constitute a sovereign function; such a duty was improperly discharged, as the property was stolen. Hence, in accordance with Article 300 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, the state should have been held liable.

For the reasons justified above, the judgement given in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of UP^[6] is considered erroneous and has been bypassed by subsequent judgements, such as Saheli v. Commissioner of Police^[7] and Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa^[8]. 

REFERENCES

[1] INDIA CONST. art. 300.

[2] INDIA CONST. art. 300, amended by The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.

[3] Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State for India, (1868-1869) 5 Bom HCR App 1 P.1

[4] Secretary of State for India v. Hari Bhanji, (1882) 5 ILRMAD 273.

[5] Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P.) Ltd. v. The State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1. ⁹ Union of India v. Sugrabai Abdul Majid, 1968 ACJ 252.

[6] Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1039.

[7] Saheli v. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1990 SC 513.

[8] Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746.

• Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co., 156 ER 1047.
• Faris v. Hoberg, (1893) 134 Ind. 269, 274, 33 N. E. 102.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 102, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).