( 1 ) THIS First Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nadiad in Special Civil Suit no. 156 of 1976 dated 12/01/1976, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant-Police Officer, without any orders as to cost and calls upon this Court to adjudicate upon and decide the oft raised question as to whether in an action for damages for Police Atrocity the defendant-Police Officer can successfully raise the defence of his acting in a good faith as a Public Servant, giving effect to the orders issued with the apparent authority of the State government in the discharge of his duty. The learned trial Judge, oblivious of the existence of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and the loud messages sought to be conveyed by the Apex Court of the Nation, after having under taken the liability of defending the Police Officer on his shoulders, has replied the question in affirmative, ushering the plaintiff victim to this Court for the redressal of his grievances.

( 2 ) ANY Court either trial or appellate in such a situation would be required to see as to what has been given to ourselves by we The People of India by enacting the Constitution. We indeed wanted to secure to all the citizens of the Country Justice (Social, Economic and Political) Liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship) Equality (of status and opportunity) and to promote amoung them all Fraternity assuring the Dignity of the Individual. The preamble itself declared the right and freedoms to be guaranteed to the people of India. Art. 21 of the Constitution though in negative language confers upon and secures to every citizen right to the life and personal liberty. The right to life necessarily includes the right of live with human dignity. The expression "personal Liberty" has been given a very wide meaning and the supreme Court speaking through His Lordship Mr. Justice Bhagwati in Maneka gandhis case (AIR 1978 SC 597) has said thus :"the expression "personal Liberty" in Art. 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and additional protection under Art. 19. "

( 3 ) IT is at the same time, really, very true that the Personal Liberty can always be curtailed but that should be done by the "procedure established by the Law of the State". Such a law would presuppose firstly some Law or Laws justifying interference with the persons liberty. Secondly the law should be a valid law and thirdly the procedure laid down by the Law should have been strictly followed. If the State or the Officer of the State interferes with the personal Liberty of the Citizen in any other manner not warranted by Law or an excepted legal procedure necessarily contravenes Art. 21 of the Constitution.

( 4 ) A faint suggestion was sought to be made out here also, saying that the concerned Police Officer was acting in the discharge of Sovereign powers of the State. The second subsequent suggestion which would automatically spring out from the former one would be that the Police Officer was immune for the acts and deeds allegedly committed by him. But it requires to be appreciated that the doctrine of immunity was based upon the Common Law principle that the King Commits No Wrong. This doctrine imported from the English Common Law has seen many changes and it stands substantially charged and altered by The Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, as pointed out by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lals case (AIR 1965 SC 1039 ). Thus, by invoking the dying doctrine of Sovereign immunity, the guarantee given by Art. 21 of the Constitution cannot be set at naught.

( 5 ) GOING to the facts of the Appeal on hand the appellant-plaintiff Kalidas jain a merchant dealing in utensils and metalwares at Kansara Bazar, Nadiad, had filed the above said suit against P.