The state is not vicariously liable for the activity of the police officers

Barathkumar K M | Sastra Deemed to be University Thanjavur | 14th July 2020

Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts:

The appellant runs a firm which was registered under the Indian Partnership Act. Ralia Ram is a partner of the firm. We went to Meerut to sell gold and silver, on the way he was taken into custody by three police constables. He was kept in the lock-up and the gold and silver were seized from him and kept in police custody. Afterwards, he was released on bail and the police returned the seized silver to him but the police didn’t return the gold. It was held that the gold was kept under the Head Constable, Mohammed Amir, he misappropriated the gold and fled away to Pakistan. The appellant filed a suit against the respondent in the trial court for claiming the compensation of Rs. 11,075 for the value of gold and Rs. 355 for the interest of the damage. The trial court ordered the respondent to give compensation. Thus, the respondent approached the Allahabad High Court, the High Court held that the respondent was not liable and quashed the order of the trial court. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant to challenge the order of the Allahabad High Court.

Issues:

1. Whether the police were liable for negligence?
2. Whether the police needs to pay compensation to the appellant?

Legal Provision:

• Sec. 409 of the I.P.C
• Sec. 29 of the Police Act

Appellant’s contention:

The appellant contended that the gold was kept under the police custody. Thus, the police should return the gold to the appellant, the failure in the duty of the police leads to the vicarious liability of the state. 

Respondent’s contention:

The respondent contended that the custody of the seized product by the police officers is the statutory power of the police and so the state is not vicariously liable.

Observation:

It was observed that the seized gold was kept under the Head Constable, the misappropriation of the Head Constable cannot lead the state to vicariously liable. In this case, there is no negligence on the part of the police.

Judgment:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in this case there is no negligence part of the police. The powers of the police to arrest a person and to seize his property are powers conferred on the police officers as statutory power. Hence the state is not vicariously liable.