1964 (9) TMI 62 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Negligence of police officers in handling seized property.
2. Liability of the State for the negligence of its employees.
3. Interpretation of Article 300(1) of the Indian Constitution.
4. Application of the principle of sovereign immunity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Negligence of Police Officers in Handling Seized Property:
The core issue was whether the police officers were negligent in handling the gold seized from Ralia Ram. The trial court found the police officers negligent, noting that the gold was not kept in the Treasury as required by Regulation 166 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The High Court, however, found no negligence. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the evidence, concluded that the police officers were indeed negligent. Key witnesses testified that the gold was not weighed, listed, or kept in the Treasury, which demonstrated gross negligence. The Supreme Court emphasized that meticulous care is required for handling seized property, as outlined in the U.P. Police Regulations.

2. Liability of the State for the Negligence of its Employees:
The appellant argued that the State should be liable for the negligence of its employees, citing the precedent set in State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case from Vidhyawati, noting that the latter involved a non-sovereign function (driving a jeep for a Collector's use), whereas the present case involved the exercise of sovereign powers (arrest, search, and seizure). The Court reiterated the principle that the State is not liable for acts committed by its employees in the exercise of sovereign powers.

3. Interpretation of Article 300(1) of the Indian Constitution:
Article 300(1) stipulates that the Government of India or a State may be sued in cases similar to those where the Dominion of India or the corresponding Provinces could be sued if the Constitution had not been enacted. This necessitated examining historical statutes, such as Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858, which allowed for suits against the Secretary of State in Council for acts that could have been actionable against the East India Company. The Court referenced the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. The Secretary of State for India case, which established the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions, holding that the State is only liable for non-sovereign functions.

4. Application of the Principle of Sovereign Immunity:
The principle of sovereign immunity, rooted in the maxim "the King can do no wrong," was examined. The Court noted that this principle has been modified in England by the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, but remains applicable in India. The Court concluded that the negligent act of the police officers, being part of their sovereign functions, did not render the State liable for damages. The Court suggested that Indian legislatures should consider enacting laws similar to the Crown Proceedings Act to address such issues.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the State was not liable for the negligence of its police officers in handling the seized gold, as their actions were part of sovereign functions. The Court expressed the need for legislative intervention to address the unsatisfactory legal position where citizens are left without remedy for the negligence of state officials in the exercise of sovereign powers. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.