9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the seizures of rice bags on various dates. 2. Liability of the Government of Orissa for the actions of its officials. 3. Application of Section 17(1) of the Defence of India Act. 4. Quantum of damages and interest. 5. Limitation period for filing the suit. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Seizures of Rice Bags on Various Dates: The plaintiff, a merchant, alleged illegal and malicious seizure of rice bags on multiple dates in 1943. The seizures were conducted by police officers under the pretext of contravening the Foodgrains Control Order, 1942, and the Defence of India Rules. The court examined the circumstances of each seizure: - First Seizure (28-6-1943): The plaintiff was present and showed his licence to the police officer, who nonetheless seized the rice bags. The court found no justification for the seizure. - Second Seizure (7-7-1943): The seizure was made during the investigation of a cognizable offence under Sections 147 and 341, IPC, initiated by the plaintiff himself. The court found the seizure lawful under the Criminal Procedure Code. - Third Seizure (16-7-1943): The rice bags were seized from one Bimbadhar, who was later discharged. The plaintiff did not implead Bimbadhar in the suit, leading to an adverse inference against him. The court upheld the seizure as justified. - Fourth Seizure (16-7-1943): The plaintiff was present and showed his licence. The police officer's claim that no licence was produced was disbelieved. The seizure was deemed unjustified. - Fifth Seizure (22-7-1943): The plaintiff was present and showed his licence. The police officer's claim was disbelieved. The seizure was deemed unjustified. - Sixth Seizure (27-7-1943): Similar to the fifth seizure, the plaintiff was present and showed his licence. The seizure was deemed unjustified. - Seventh Seizure (27-7-1943): The plaintiff was not present at the time of the seizure, and no licence was produced by the cartmen. The seizure was justified under Section 550, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Liability of the Government of Orissa for the Actions of its Officials: The plaintiff alleged a conspiracy between the Government of Orissa and its officials to prevent the export of rice to Bengal. The court found no direct evidence of such a conspiracy. It was suggested that the local officials acted on their own initiative, knowing the provincial government's attitude towards free trade. The court held that the government was not liable for the tortious acts of its servants, as there was no evidence of conspiracy or ratification of the officials' actions by the government. 3. Application of Section 17(1) of the Defence of India Act: Section 17(1) provides protection to officials for acts done in good faith under the Defence of India Act. The court interpreted 'good faith' based on the General Clauses Act, 1897, meaning acts done honestly, even if negligently. The court found that the police officers did not act in good faith in some seizures, as they seized the rice bags despite the plaintiff showing his licence. Therefore, Section 17(1) did not protect these officers. 4. Quantum of Damages and Interest: The lower court fixed the price per bag of rice at Rs. 20/13/2 1/2 pies and awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of seizure till the date of the suit or the date of the magistrate's order. The court affirmed these damages and interest rates. Additional damages were awarded against defendant No. 4 for the first seizure. The plaintiff was entitled to the sale proceeds of the rice bags seized on 12-9-1943 and 27-7-1943, amounting to Rs. 5,494/4/6 and Rs. 2,642/5/6, respectively. 5. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit: The defendants argued for a six-month limitation period under Article 2, Limitation Act. However, the court found that the illegal seizures were not done in pursuance of any provision of the Defence of India Rules or the Criminal Procedure Code, making this limitation period inapplicable. Conclusion: The court dismissed F.A. No. 23/46 with costs and allowed F.A. No. 18/46 against A.S.I. Lokanath Misra (defendant No. 4) with proportionate costs. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for the unlawful seizures and the sale proceeds of certain rice bags. The Government of Orissa was not held liable for the actions of its officials.
|
