P KADER BATCHA Vs. K A ALAGARSWAMI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal has been instituted by the defendant in an action for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000 as damages for a trespass to person. After a review of the facts, and the principles of law applicable to a case of the kind, ramachandra Iyer J. (As he then was) decided in S. A. 1278 of 1960 firstly, that there was trespass committed by the appellant upon the person of a certain alagarswami Naicker (plaintiff in the suit), next that the trespass occurred under such circumstances of malicious and mala fide action as to entitle the plaintiff to damages, and, finally, that the claim for damages is in regard to this tort was not barred by limitation, with respect to he processions of S. 53 of the Madras District police Act. The learned Judge quantified the damages at Rs. 100 and gave a decree for that amount, with subsequent interest and costs. He also granted leave, and hence the Letters Patent Appeal by the defendant.

(2.) THE facts are practically not in dispute, and learned counsel for the appellant, mr. Ahmed Meeran, has been fair enough to concede the major facts which are incontrovertibly established by the record. The appellant is a Sub Inspector of Police, and he arrested the plaintiff-respondent on the afternoon of 1-1-1957 in connection with injuries caused to a certain lakshmanpathi Naicker on 30-12-1956. The plaintiff was admittedly then produced by the police officer (appellant) before the Sub-Magistrate, and remanded by the magistrate to the Sub Jail at Sattur. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff complained of severe colic, and was removed to the Government Hospital, at satire, where he was an inpatient till 25-1-1957. Though the learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer J.) differed from the concurrent decrees of the Courts below dismissing the claim of the plaintiff, this is not upon any varying view of the merits of the evidence, but on an analysis and application of the principles of law relevant to the faces; actually the learned Judge accepted the concurrent findings of the trial and the first appellate Courts. It is clear form those findings that this police officer (appellant) went to the hospital the next morning, and directed the police sentry guarding the plaintiff to put letters (handcuffs) on him; not merely this, the plaintiff was handcuffed and chained like a dangerous animal, to a neighbouring window bar.

(3.) A medical officer made his routine visit on 4-1-1957, saw the plaintiff chained in that manner, and raised objections. It was only thereafter that the fetters and the chains were removed. On that very day, the Court removed. On that very day, the Court enlarged the plaintiff on bail. Subsequently, the plaintiff was tried along with others upon a charge under S. 307 I. P. C. , and acquitted. After the acquittal, the plaintiff preferred the present claim for damages, for a tort committed on his person.