Back
1953 Supreme(P&H) 54
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Falshaw and Kapur JJ.
Kundan Lal
Versus
Des Raj L Multani Ram
of,
First Appeal No. 26 of 1949,
Decided On : JUNE 22, 1953
The police do not have the power to cancel a bail bond and order the rearrest of an accused person.
Headnote:
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT - ACT-SECTION REFERRED - SECTION 496, 497, 498, 499, 502, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SUMMARY - The court held that the defendants, a Superintendent of Police and a Sub-Inspector, were jointly liable for the false imprisonment of the plaintiff, as they had no power to cancel the plaintiff's bail bond and order his rearrest. However, the court found that the defendants were not acting mala fide and that the chain of causation was broken by the intervention of a judicial order, thus limiting the defendants' liability to the period of the plaintiff's arrest until he was placed before the District Magistrate. The court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs.292/- for expenses incurred in applying for his release before the District Magistrate, but dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages for mental and bodily pain and loss of reputation.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a self-proclaimed doctor and social and political worker, was arrested by the Special Police under Sections 120-B, 420, and 161 of the Indian Penal Code but was released on bail. The Superintendent of Police, acting on an application by the plaintiff's surety for cancellation of the bail bond, ordered the plaintiff's rearrest. The plaintiff was arrested by the Sub-Inspector and produced before the District Magistrate, who ordered his transfer to Lahore. The plaintiff was released on bail in Lahore and later convicted of cheating and sentenced to imprisonment. He then filed a suit for damages for wrongful confinement, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment against the Superintendent of Police, the Sub-Inspector, and the Punjab Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants had no power to cancel the plaintiff's bail bond and order his rearrest, and that they were therefore jointly liable for the false imprisonment of the plaintiff. However, the court found that the defendants were not acting mala fide and that the chain of causation was broken by the intervention of a judicial order, thus limiting the defendants' liability to the period of the plaintiff's arrest until he was placed before the District Magistrate. The court awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs.292/- for expenses incurred in applying for his release before the District Magistrate, but dismissed the plaintiff's claims for damages for mental and bodily pain and loss of reputation.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were acting bona fide in the discharge of their duties and were protected under Sec.270 (1), Government of India Act, 1935? 2. Whether the defendants were guilty of any tortious act? 3. Whether the defendants were liable for the confinement of the plaintiff after the order of the District Magistrate had been passed? 4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for mental and bodily pain and loss of reputation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 270 (1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided protection for acts done before the relevant date, did not apply to the facts of the case as the cause of action arose after the relevant date. 2. The defendants were not guilty of any tortious act as they were acting in the bona fide belief that they were discharging their duties. 3. The defendants were liable for the confinement of the plaintiff only up to the time he was placed before the District Magistrate, as the chain of causation was broken by the intervention of a judicial order. 4. The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for mental and bodily pain and loss of reputation as there was no evidence to support these claims.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and reduced the damages to be paid by the defendants to a sum of Rs.292/-. The plaintiff was ordered to pay proportionate costs to the defendants for both the Courts.
, J.
1. This is an appeal brought by , Sub-Inspector Kundan Lal against a judgment and decree of mr. Jawala Das, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Ambala, dated 18-11-1948 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for Bs.2,000/- as damages for wrongful confinement against the appellant Sub-Inspector kundan Lal and the Superintendent of Police of the District Mr. Balbir Singh. The appeal was filed by Kundan Lal alone but under the grounds of appeal a note was added: respondent No. II (S. Balbir Singh) is made one pro forma and this appeal is filed for his benefit also". On 23-6-1949 on an application made by Mr. Balbir Singh for being transposed as an appellant harnam Singh J. passed the following order "allowed subject to just exceptions".
2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff Des Raj, who carries on some kind of a Chemists shop in Kalka town and has been given the honorific appellation of doctor and claims to be a private medical practitioner and social and political worker, was arrested by the Special Police under Sections 120-B, 420 and 161, Indian Penal Code, but was released on bail on 7-7-1944. Hari Chand P. W.9 stood surety for him. On 25-9-1944 when Mr. Balbir Singh, District Superintendent of Police, was in camp at Kalka Hari Chand made an application asking for the cancellation of his bail bond because his father was displeased for his standing surety for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. On this application Mr. Balbir Singh passed the following order which is Ex. P.4/b at page 83: "this has been produced before me. Dr. Des Raj is wanted in a very serious case of cheating, which was investigated by the War Department. The amount of the bail is Rs.40,000/-. There is likelihood that the accused may run away, finding out that their sureties are wavering. A similar petition was put forward in respect of Kartar Singh a co-accused, by his surety, Rajinder Kumar. The accused should, therefore, be arrested and produced before a Magistrate without delay for orders. " On the same day Des Raj was arrested by Sub-Inspector Kundan Lal and it is alleged that efforts were made by certain persons to stand sureties for Des Raj but the Sub-Inspector refused to accept them. On the following morning at about 6-45 a. m. an application was made to the sub-Inspector by two lawyers from Ambala, Messrs. Siri Ram Gupta and Raghbir Saran asking that Des Raj be released on bail, but the Sub-Inspector again refused to release Des Raj on bail on the ground that he did not know the sureties. The order is at the back of this application Ex. P. I.
3. Des Raj was produced before the District Magistrate on 26-9-1944, and he ordered that Dea raj be produced in the Court of District Magistrate, Lahore. It appears that the Prosecuting sub-Inspector Chambel Singh made a note on the back of the challan and this note is Ex. P.3/b, where it was stated that Des Raj was arrested and released by the Special Police War establishment Lahore, that the sureties had applied for the cancellation of the bail bonds, that the accused persons had been arrested for their failure to furnish security and had been produced in court and it was requested that an order for their transfer to Lahore District be passed. Thereupon Des Raj was taken to Lahore and was produced before the Duty Magistrate on the 27th of September at Lahore and an application was there made by Dy. S. P. Dhan Raj that the accused be released on bail if respectable sureties were offered, otherwise 15 days remand be granted and the accused kept in the judicial lock up. On the same day the Duty Magistrate passed an order that Des Raj be released on bail in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Des Raj was released on bail, this bail being furnished on 3-10-1944.
4. Des Raj was then tried by the Tribunal and was convicted under Sec.420, read with section 109, Penal Code, and under Sec.161, read with Sec.120-B, Penal Code, and sentenced to a years imprisonment and his appeal to the High Court was dismissed. In
