Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court of India · 29 September 1964 · 5 judges · 1965 AIR 1039; 1965 SCR (1) 375
Although police officers negligently lost gold seized from the appellant's partner, the State was not liable in damages because the powers to arrest, search and seize are sovereign powers; the appeal was dismissed.
Facts
The appellant was a bullion firm of Amritsar. In September 1947 one of its partners was arrested by police constables at Meerut on suspicion of carrying stolen property, and gold and silver were seized from him and kept at the Kotwali police station. The silver was later returned, but the gold could not be; the State's case was that the Head Constable in charge of the Malkhana had misappropriated it and fled to Pakistan. The firm sued the State of Uttar Pradesh for return of the gold or its value. The trial court found the police negligent and decreed the suit; the Allahabad High Court reversed, holding that negligence was not proved and that the State would not be liable in any case. The firm appealed on a certificate.
Questions before the Court
- Was the loss of the seized gold caused by the negligence of the police officers?
- Is the State liable under Article 300(1) for loss caused by the negligence of its police officers while dealing with property seized in exercise of statutory powers?
What the Court held
- The police officers were grossly negligent. Under Regulation 166 of the U.P. Police Regulations the gold had to be kept in a separate box under lock and key in the Treasury, which was not done; no list appears to have been made and there was no evidence of weighing. The High Court misread the Regulations.
- Under Article 300(1), the State's liability depends on whether a suit would have lain against the corresponding Province, which leads back to Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858 and the principle in Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. Secretary of State (1861).
- No action lies for a tortious act of a public servant done in discharge of statutory functions referable to delegated sovereign powers of the State; an action lies where the duties are not referable to any delegation of sovereign power.
- The powers to arrest, search and seize are statutory powers properly characterised as sovereign. Though the negligence occurred in the course of employment, the claim against the State was not sustainable and the appeal was dismissed, each party bearing its own costs.
- State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati was distinguished: driving a jeep for a Collector's use was not connected with sovereign power. The area of sovereign immunity must be strictly determined.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions to the liability of the State in tort under Article 300(1), holding the State immune for negligence of police officers exercising statutory powers of arrest, search and seizure. It confines Vidyawati to non-sovereign activities, and the Court itself called the result unsatisfactory and urged legislatures to regulate State immunity on the lines of the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“If a tortious act is committed by a public servant and it gives rise to a claim for damages, the question to ask is : was the tortious act committed by the public servant in discharge of statutory functions which are referable to, and ultimately based on, the delegation of the sovereign powers of the State to such public servant ? If the answer is in the affirmative, the action for damages for loss caused by such tortious act will not lie.”
“Before such a plea is upheld, the Court must always find that the impugned act was committed in the course of an undertaking or employment which is referable to the exercise of sovereign power, or to the exercise of delegated sovereign power; and in the Vidhyawati case(1), this Court took the view that the negligent act in driving the jeep car from the workshop to the Collector's bungalow for the Collector's use could not claim such a status.”
“Now, the power to arrest a person, to search him, and to seize property found with him, are powers conferred on the specified officers by statute and in the last analysis, they are powers which can be properly characterised as sovereign powers;”
“Before we part with this appeal, however, we Ought to add that it is time that the Legislatures in India seriously consider whether they should not pass legislative enactments to regulate and control their claim of immunity in cases like this on the same lines as has been done in England by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947.”
Provisions interpreted
- Article 300(1), Constitution
- Section 65, Government of India Act, 1858
- Sections 51, 54(1)(iv), 523 and 550, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
- Regulations 165 and 166, U.P. Police Regulations
Related judgments
- Distinguishes State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962)“the facts in the Vidhyawati case fall in a category of claims which is distinct and separate from the category in which the facts in the present case fall” (page 7)
- Distinguished in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993)
- Explained in N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994)
- Distinguished in Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 105 of 1963
- Decided
- 29 September 1964
- Bench
- Gajendragadkar, P.B. (CJ), Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar, Mudholkar, J.R.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Gajendragadkar, CJ.
Questions on this case
3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1
Police officers, acting under their statutory powers of arrest and seizure, seize gold from A. Through their negligence in its safe custody, the gold is lost and never returned to A. A sues the State for its value. Applying Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P., the suit:
- A. succeeds, as Article 300 has removed every immunity the State once had
- B. fails, as a claim for loss of property lies only by a writ under Article 32
- C. succeeds, as the State is liable in the same way as any private employer
- D. fails, as the negligence occurred in the exercise of sovereign powers
Show the answer
D. fails, as the negligence occurred in the exercise of sovereign powers
In Kasturilal (AIR 1965 SC 1039) the power to arrest, search and seize was held to be a sovereign power, so the State was not liable for the negligence of the police in keeping the gold. The Court distinguished State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, where the tort was not committed in exercise of sovereign power.