STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. TULSI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of U. P. has appealed against a decree for damages assessed at Rs. 500/- awarded to the two plaintiffs-respondents, Tulsi Rsaa and Sri Prakash, in the following cir cumstances: The plaintiffs- respondents were prosecuted, together with three other persons, for offences punishable under Sections 148/323/324/325/307 I. P. C. in the Court of Sessions at Oral in the year 1955. Tulsi Ram was acquitted by the Court of Sessions on 12-11-1955, but Shri Prakash and three others were each sentenced to three years' R. I. and also ordered to pay fines of Rs. 25/- each. As a result of an appeal filed in this Court, Shri Prakash was also acquitted. But, the convictions of the other three persons, namely, Parsole, Badri and Mangal were affirmed by this Court The orders of this Court authorised the arrest of three persons only, that is to say, Parsole, Badri and Mangal. These orders were duly certified under Sec tion 425 (1), Cr. P. C. and sent to the Sessions Court. It appears that, from the Court of Sessions, necessary directions were sent to the District Magistrate, who forward ed them to the committing Magistrate, a Judicial Officer, to see that the orders of this Court were complied with. This meant that all that the Judicial Officer had to do was to issue warrants of ar rest if the convicted persons did not sur render so that the orders of this Court, as communicated to the Sessions Court, may be duly complied with. The Judi cial Officer had to perform a purely ministerial function to see that the direc tions of this Court were duly carried out. It was his legal duly to carry out the directions given to him through the Dis trict Magistrate who had sent the orders of this Court to the Judicial Officer for compliance. In attempting to comply with the orders sent, the Judicial Offi cer was negligent. He permitted his Ah-almad to make out warrants of arrest and then signed whatever was placed before him by the Ahalmad. The Ah-almad had, for unexplained reasons, made out warrants of arrest against five persons, that is to say, the three persons whose- convictions were upheld by this Court as well as the plaintiff, Tulsi Ram, who had been acquitted by the Court of Sessions in 1955, and Shri Prakash who had been acquitted by this Court on 7-1-1958, although the Judicial Officer's order itself authorised issue of warrants against three convicted persons only. The result was that the plaintiffs-respondents- were arrested by the police of Jalaun on 6-3-1958 at village Shahzad-pur at about 10 A. M. and were taken hand-cuffed from their village to the police station, Jalaun, for a distance of about six miles. They were lodged in the police lock-up at about 2 P. M. and then suddenly released at 3 P. M. The plaintiffs stated that on 6th of March, 1958, fell the important festival of Holi and that they were arrested before their relations and friends and fellow villagers and that this caused much humiliation, disgrace, physical discomfort, and men tal suffering to them for which they claimed Rs. 2000/- as damages.

(2.) THE learned Munsif had dis missed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the Judicial Officer, Sri Nem Chand Jain who was implead ed as a co-defendant and is respondent no. 3 in the appeal before me, was protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act of 1850. As the Judicial Officer was held to be protected, the learned Munsif also dis missed the suit against the State of U. P. on the ground that the State could not be' vicariously responsible for an act of a Government servant who was protect ed. The lower appellate Court had en dorsed the view of the learned Munsif that the Judicial Officer was protected. But, it held that the State of U. P. was vicariously liable for the negligence of the Ahalmad. It, therefore, allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents and awarded Us. 500/- as damages to them. The State of U. P. has appealed. The Judicial Officer, impleaded as a respon dent, has not put in appearance.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has contended that since the Judicial Officer was carrying out a direction of law, the State of U. P. could not be held to be liable. He placed reliance on: Mohammad Murad v. Govt. of U. P. 1955 All LJ 697 = (AIR 1956 All 75) and on United Provinces v. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram, 1960 All LJ 529. In the last mentioned case, the decision of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram v. State of U. P., AIR 1965 SC 1039. Learned counsel for the State also cited State of Bihar v. N. P. Jain. AIR 1963 Pat 290. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs- respondents relied on State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati, AIR 1962 SC 933. The propositions contain ed in the cases mentioned above and their applicability in the instant case may now be considered.