D.MADHU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. He has filed the appeal challenging the dismissal of his Suit for Money, with the claim founded on damages, allegedly, caused by defendants.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff in brief claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages can be summed up thus: Plaintiff is a Police Officer, who held the post of Circle Inspector of Police when the suit was instituted. First respondent in the suit is the State, second defendant Director General of Police and the third defendant a Sub Inspector of Police in a Station at Trivandrum. An industry by name Venus Wood Industries, Veli with the stock situated in its premises were under attachment consequent to the default committed by its owner in repaying the loan amount to Kerala Financial Corporation, hereinafter referred to as KFC, to which 20 cents of land with the machinery in the industry had been mortgaged as security for such loan. When KFC proceeded for auction of attached timber logs and machinery plaintiff put forth a claim for releasing ten timber logs from attachment contending that he is the owner of those logs. While his claim was pending before KFC, with some labourers and also owner of the factory he reached the industry with a lorry for removing the ten timber logs. Security guard engaged by KFC to secure and watch the attached property informed the police control room, and pursuant to message conveyed third respondent, Sub Inspector of Police of the local station, reached the spot, apprehended the labourers who were engaged in removing and loading the logs in the lorry and seized the motor vehicle and logs. A crime was registered against the plaintiff and labourers engaged by him, and the arrested labourers, later, on production before the magistrate were remanded to custody. The were released from custody only after three days. Plaintiff had to pay them wages at the rate of 500/- per day. He had to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- to the driver of the motor vehicle. Plaintiff had to engage an advocate to get release of the arrested labourers paying a fee of Rs.5000/-. He suffered loss of reputation and also mental agony on account of the acts done by third respondent in arresting his labourers and seizing the logs and vehicle was the case to claim damages. Plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from all the defendants together alleging that the arrest of labourers, seizure of the logs and vehicle, and registration of the crime by the third respondent was actuated by malice, and it was illegal. A portion of the property in the industry alone was attached towards the loan defaulted to the KFC and if the third respondent had enquired with the KFC before proceeding with the criminal action against plaintiff and labourers engaged he could have easily found out that the logs attempted to be transported were owned by plaintiff and he had every right to remove them from the industries was the case of plaintiff to claim damages of Rs.1,00,000/-for the injury suffered by him. First and second defendants together, and the third defendant separately filed written statements. Refuting the suit claim it was contended that the plaintiff with the owner of the industry and ten others unlawfully tried to take away the logs stocked in the premises of the industry which was under attachment effected by the KFC for realisation of the defaulted loan amount due. The security guard informing the matter to the KFC and Police Control Room a flying squad reached the spot and their demand to plaintiff to stop the loading of the timber logs in the vehicle was not heeded to. Then on instructions given from the Control Room third defendant Sub Inspector of Police of the local police station reached the spot, and stopped the loading of the attached timber logs in the motor vehicle. Recording the statement of the security guard a crime was registered over the incident. The timber logs and lorry were seized preparing a mahazar and the employees engaged by the plaintiff for loading the timber were arrested. Later investigation of the crime was conducted by a Senior Police Officer, which ultimately led to filing of charge against the accused persons including the plaintiff. Whatever acts done by the third defendant over the seizure of the logs and vehicle and also arrest of the employees engaged by the plaintiff were performed in discharge of his lawful duties as a Police Officer and no act was done by him with any malice to harm the reputation or cause injury to plaintiff. Damages claimed by the plaintiff are without basis but solely intended to stifle the prosecution launched against him and his employees in the crime registered over the incident was the contention of these defendants.

(3.) Learned Sub Judge appreciating the pleadings and materials produced by both sides negatived the claim of plaintiff and dismissed his suit. Aggrieved by such dismissal plaintiff has preferred this appeal.