RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 40 of 1978, on the file of the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat. He filed the suit for damages for malicious prosecution against three defendants, the State of Assam and two Police Officers for recovery of various amounts shown in Schedules A, B and C. Schedule A of the suit was an amount of Rs. 2,53,425/- claimed as damages towards mental pain, social and public humiliation, wrongful confinement and expenses incurred for defending the criminal cases (for convenience we shall describe them as non-pecuniary damages). Schedules B and C comprised the value of paddy and rice of the appellant which was seized and then sold by the police officers, defendants 2 and 3 (for convenience we shall describe them as pecuniary damages). The trial Court dismissed the suit on 16-7-84. But on appeal, the High Court while holding that the defendants 1 to 3 were guilty of malicious prosecution, abuse of power and unauthorised action, granted relief only in regard to pecuniary damages in the B and C Schedules (value of goods) but dismissed the suit for non-pecuniary damages in A Schedule items (pain, damage to reputation etc.) on the ground that the pleadings and evidence in respect of the said items were vague. The plaintiff has filed this appeal for non-pecuniary damages covered by the A Schedule items. The defendants 1 to 3 have not filed any appeal in regard to amount decreed for pecuniary damages as per the B or C Schedules.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows: The defendants 2 and 3 entered the appellant's Mill towards dusk-time on 1-10-1977 and seized the paddy and rice and arrested the appellant for alleged violation of the provisions of the Assam Foodgrains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961. A criminal case was filed against the appellant. On 4-10-1977, the appellant was granted bail but he was released only on 5-10-1977. The paddy and rice were sold and an amount of Rs. 44,592.10 was realised. The amount is shown in the B and C Schedules. The appellant was discharged by the Criminal Court on 12-4-78, on the ground that the Assam Control Order of 1961 was not in force at the time of search, seizure and arrest of the appellant in 1-10-1977 but that it had expired on 30-9-1997.

(3.) The appellant contended in the Courts below that the search, seizure and arrest were unauthorised as the Central Government had, in fact, removed various restrictions w.e.f. 1-10-1977 and that the news in that behalf was published in various newspapers on 29-9-1977. He also contended that he had personally informed the respondents 2, 3 (defendants 2 and 3) on 1-10-1977 at the time of the search operation about the expiry of the Control Order, that the defendants 2 and 3 did not pay any heed and went ahead and arrested the appellant because their demand for a bag of rice was not complied with. It was also contended that the defendants 2 and 3 acted mala fide, that the appellant and the owners of the paddy/rice had permits for milling paddy and the same were produced before these officers but they did not care even to look into them. The sale of goods was also made in haste. These facts, according to the plaintiff, showed that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the prosecution. Therefore, the defendants were liable for damages as stated in plaint Schedules A, B and C.