S MEGARAJAN Vs. O S DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st defendant is the appellant. THE plaintiff filed a suit against the 1st defendant and the State of Tamil Nadu as the 2nd defendant, claiming a sum of Rs. 24,936/- as damages: "

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the plaintiff runs as follows: " The plaintiff is a respectable, and influential landlord. He has been the President of the Tamil Nadu Vettuva Gounder Sangam and he was also a Trustee of Arulmighu Arasalaman and Arulmighu Subramania Swami Temples at Arachalur. The plaintiff is held in high esteem not only by the members of his own community, but by also the general public. Concerning the death of one Ramasamy of Kattupalayam, a case was registered against Viswanathan, Namakutty @ Ramasami and Doraisamy under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C., in Cr. No. 594 of 1978 in Arichalur Police Station. The 1st defendant was the Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk at Erode having Jurisdiction over Arachalur. Two months prior to 26.12.1978, the plaintiff conveyed information to the police over phone about illicit distillation of arrack within the limits of his village. The 1st defendant who was in the station, took up the call and when he insisted upon the informant to disclose his identity, the plaintiff refused to do so and rang off. Subsequently , the plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant had ascertained the source of phone call and found that it was made by the plaintiff. In the course of investigation of Cr. No. 1594 of 1978, when the plaintiff went to Arachalur Police Station, the 1st defendant questioned him regarding the delay in furnishing sketches of the scene of occurrence, to which, the plaintiff replied that it was not his duty, but that of the "karnam". The 1st defendant was put out by the reply given by the plaintiff. Hence he has been nurturing a grievance. On 29.1.1979, the 1st defendant arrested the plaintiff at about 5 p.m. and took him to Arachalur Police Station, searched him and locked him up. The indignity suffered by the plaintiff was witnessed by the huge crowd gathered at the time of arrest. The first defendant created records to show that he was arrested at 11.15 p.m in that night. He was produced before the Additional Judicial II Class Magistrate, Erode, on 30.1.1979 and remanded to custody. In Crl.M.P. No. 367 of 1979, the plaintiff was granted bail with condition that he should reside at Salem. In Crl.M.P. No. 437 of 1979, the condition was relaxed, permitting the plaintiff to report before the Salem Police Station, once in three days. It was later modified in Crl.M.P. No. 545 of 1979, the plaintiff to reside within the limits of Erode Municipality and report before the Erode Town Police Station once in two days, and forbidding the plaintiff from visiting the village. The relaxation petitions filed in Crl.M.P. No. 690 of 1979, 820 of 1979, 930 of 1979, 1088/79 were all dismissed. On 26.4.1979, in Crl. M.P. No. 1274 of 1979, the court relaxed the condition., Subsequently charge sheet was filed in that case against Viswanathan, Ramsai @ Ramkumari and Duraisamy along and the case was later committed, whic h ended in acquittal in S.C. No. 30 of 1979, on 1510.1979, after his arrest, the plaintiff was suspended from the office of Village Munsif. From 30/1/1979 to 27/4/1979, the plaintiff was not able to look after his lands and attend to his duties as Village Munsif and "Dharmakarta". The plaintiff was denied an opportunity to attend the festival and thereby, his prestige was lowered in the public. Hence the suit is filed for damages for defamation and for false imprisonment.

(3.) THE Points : " THE above suit has been filed claiming compensation for false arrest. THE plaintiff does not allege anywhere in the plaint that the arrest of the plaintiff was without any reasonable and probable cause. It is also specifically alleged that it was malicious arrest. Of course, the plaintiff would set out two circumstances, which according to the plaintiff furnished the necessary ill-will for the arrest. False imprisonment is committed if the arrest and imprisonment of a person is made without lawful justification. When arrest is made without any reasonable and probable cause or where malice is proved, the person affected can lawfully maintain an action for the damages. THE defence raised in this case is that the 1st defendant being a Police Officer was acting on credible information and therefore, he is not liable for damages. Thus, he relied upon his statutory power to effect arrest, which power according to him was exercised on the basis of credible information that he received. According to him, the offence being an arrestable offence, the 1st defendant did the right thing and that such an act of the 1st defendant in making the arrest of the accused and producing him before the court cannot be called in question, much less would form a basis for tortious liability.