Published on 9th March 2025
Authored By: Ami Yadav
PES Modern Law College , Pune
Facts
The above case was set in India when Constitution didn’t come into force, however its judgement was given by Supreme Court in 1964. Kasturi Ralia Ram was a partner in a firm which made profit by selling bullion and other goods at Amritsar. His firm was registered under the Indian Partnership Act1.
On 20th September 1947, he arrived in Meerut, the goal of his visit was to sell his bullion products in the local market. When he was passing through a Bazar, he was taken into custody by three police constables who apprehended him on the suspicion that he was carrying stolen goods. His goods were confiscated which consisted of gold weighing around 100 tolas, 6 mashas and 1 ratti and Silver weighing 2 maunds and 6 1/2 seers.
Next day i.e. 21st September,1947, Kasturi Lal was released on bail. However, out of all his belongings, only the silver was given back to him. Repeated demands were made by him for the return of gold from the custody of police officers, for which he filed a suit against the respondent in which he claimed that the gold that was taken from him ought to be given back to him, or else an order for its worth to be paid to him. Thus, he produced an alternate claim that included Rs. 11,075-10-0 as the gold’s price and Rs. 355 as interest due to damages and future interest.
The state, being the respondent in the matter, dismissed the allegations, stating that they were not obligated to return either the gold materials or the damages. Their defence was that Mr. Muhammad Amir, the Head Constable at the time, had taken possession of the aforementioned gold. The items were kept under his charge in the ‘Police Malkhana’. However, on October 17th, 1947, Amir fled to Pakistan with all the gold and certain other items from the Police Malkhana.
Issues
- Whether the police officials were negligent in carrying out the functions?
- Whether the State is immune from any liability because of Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity?
- Whether State is liable of Vicarious Liability and consequently liable to give any compensation?
Rule
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity2: This doctrine is based in Latin maxim Rex non potest peccare meaning “the king can do no wrong”. The doctrine protects the government from being sued without its consent because it is based on the notion that the government is acting in the best interests of the country and its citizens.
Doctrine of Vicarious Liability3 : This doctrine holds a employer liable for negligent acts done by it’s agent or employee. This is only relevant, though, if the careless behaviour is carried out while the employee is employed. The Latin maxim for vicarious liability is qui facit per alium facit per se, which means “He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself”.
Code of Criminal Procedure: Various sections of CrPC comes into picture in the present case. Section 54(1)(iv) which states that any police officer may, without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person in whose possession anything is found which may who could plausibly be suspected of possessing stolen goods and who might plausibly be suspected of having committed an offense in relation to such items. This clause is the reason behind Ralia Ram’s midnight arrest.
Section 550 confers powers on police officers to seize property suspected to be stolen. It was under this section that gold and silver of Ralia Ram was confiscated.
Section 51 permits police to conduct a search on the suspected person.
Section 523 deals with safe custody of confiscated goods. It stipulates, among other things, that any police officer who seizes property obtained under Section 51 must report the incident right away to a magistrate, who would then make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be determined about the production and possession of the property.
Apart from this Indian Penal Code, UP Police Regulations and Police Act, 1861 were also applicable.
Analysis/Application
The trial court ruled in favour of Kasturi Ralia Ram and ordered to pay compensation nearly of 11,000, aggrieved by this the respondents i.e. appealed in The High Court which overturned the decision and ruled in favour of The State. Now, Kasturi Ralia Ram has appealed in The Supreme Court of India.
Appellants argued that The High Court has erred in its judgement and heavily relied on the case State of Rajasthan vs Mst Vidhyawati and Anr4 in which Supreme Court made the state liable for negligent acts of its employees and stated that sovereign immunity given to state is feudalistic notion of justice. Furthermore, the appellants also argued that even after repeated requests the gold was not delivered back to the appellant.
To this respondent argued that Police officials were under the impression that Kasturi Ralia Ram was carrying stolen goods and hence was arrested lawfully under relevant sections of CrPC. Also, the Head Constable Mr. Mohammad Amir was duly provided the goods, but he absconded after stealing some valuables and sufficient action was taken under IPC to arrest him. Lastly, even if it were assumed that police personnel were negligent, such assumption would not apply to the state because the state was carrying out its mandate.
The Supreme Court after listening both the sides delivered the judgement and relied on Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India5 which was a famous case of Vicarious Liability of that time in which state was not held responsible for actions of its employees and decision was in favour of state. The Supreme Court thus ruled in favour of The State and dismissed the appeal.
After listening to the witnesses Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Police officials were negligent in carrying out the functions granted to them by statutes and law as due procedure wasn’t followed as there was blatant disregard as to how articles of gold and silver were to be treated, no list of weights of articles was made and also the articles weren’t kept in safe custody in the police treasury. But that negligent act was itself committed during the course of employment which was in turn protected by sovereign authority of the state.
With regards to Sovereign Immunity the court held that negligent act of police officials were happened while they were performing the sovereign functions of the state. Likewise in the case of Shivabhajan Durgaprasad v. Secretary of State for India6 the State was not held liable for negligent actions of chief constable. Thus, the court said State had defence of Sovereign Immunity.
As the court held that, The State had a defence of sovereign immunity as some functions can only be performed by the Government, therefore the state cannot be held liable for vicarious liability of its employees and subsequently state was under no obligation to provide compensation or monetary relief to Kasturi Ralia Ram. Basic principle enunciated by Peacock
- J. in 1861 in ruling of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India7 was followed in dealing with the question about the State’s liability in respect of negligent or tortious acts committed by public servants employed by the State.
Thus, The Court dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion
In summary, this case serves as an excellent illustration of why it is critical to update our legal system required by changing needs of society. Suggestions were made in the 49th Law Commission Report to do away with the notion of sovereign immunity. The Constitution does not expressly address this theory, although it does make reference to it in a number of places, such as Article 300. In this instance, despite the fact that the police officers were found to be negligent, the state was exempt from liability for compensating the victim. The process of rendering decisions has evolved throughout time, and these days, there are very few instances in which these concepts are applicable because it is unfair to not compensate, this decision was overturned.
References
1 Indian Partnership Act, No. 9 of 1932, § 58 (India)
2 Blackshield, A. R. “TORTIOUS LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENT: A JURISPRUDENTIAL CASE NOTE.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 8, no. 4, 1966, pp. 643–59. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43949926. Accessed 29 Sept. 2024.
3 Laski, Harold J. “The Basis of Vicarious Liability.” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, 1916, pp. 105–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/786314. Accessed 29 Sept. 2024.
4 The State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati And Another 1962 AIR 933
5 Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India 5 B.H.C.R. Appx..
6 Shiv Prasad v Durga Prasad & Anr 1975 AIR 957
7 Supra, note 5
