JUDGMENT :- The State of U. P. has appealed against a decree for damages assessed at Rs. 500/- awarded to the two plaintiffs-respondents, Tulsi Ram and Sri Prakash, in the following circumstances: The plaintiffs-respondents were prosecuted, together with three other persons, for offences punishable under Sections 148/323/324/325/307 I. P. C. in the Court of Sessions at Orai in the year 1955. Tulsi Ram was acquitted by the Court of Sessions on 12-11-1955, but Shri Prakash and three others were each sentenced to three years' R. I. and also ordered to pay fines of Rs. 25/- each. As a result of an appeal filed in this Court, Shri Prakash was also acquitted. But, the convictions of the other three persons, namely, Parsole, Badri and Mangal were affirmed by this Court. The orders of this Court authorised the arrest of three persons only, that is to say, Parsole, Badri and Mangal. These orders were duly certified under Section 425 (1), Cr. P. C. and sent to the Sessions Court.

It appears that, from the Court of Sessions, necessary directions were sent to the District Magistrate, who forwarded them to the committing Magistrate, a Judicial Officer, to see that the orders of this Court were complied with. This meant that all that the Judicial Officer had to do was to issue warrants of arrest if the convicted persons did not surrender so that the orders of this Court, as communicated to the Sessions Court, may be duly complied with. The Judicial Officer had to perform a purely ministerial function to see that the directions of this Court were duly carried out. It was his legal duty to carry out the directions given to him through the District Magistrate who had sent the orders of this Court to the Judicial Officer for compliance. In attempting to comply with the orders sent, the Judicial Officer was negligent. He permitted his Ahalmad to make out warrants of arrest and then signed whatever was placed before him by the Ahalmad. The Ahalmad had, for unexplained reasons, made out warrants of arrest against five persons, that is to say, the three persons whose convictions were upheld by this Court as well as the plaintiff, Tulsi Ram, who had been acquitted by the Court of Sessions in 1955, and Shri Prakash who had been acquitted by this Court on 7-1-1958, although the Judicial Officer's order itself authorised issue of warrants against three convicted persons only. The result was that the plaintiffs-respondents were arrested by the police of Jalaun on 6-3-1958 at village Shahzadpur at about 10 A. M. and were taken hand-cuffed from their village to the police station, Jalaun, for a distance of about six miles. They were lodged in the police lock-up at about 2 P. M. and then suddenly released at 3 P. M. The plaintiffs stated that on 6th of March, 1958, fell the important festival of Holi and that they were arrested before their relations and friends and fellow villagers and that this caused much humiliation, disgrace, physical discomfort, and mental suffering to them for which they claimed Rs. 2000/- as damages.

2. The learned Munsif had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that the Judicial Officer, Sri Nem Chand Jain who was impleaded as a codefendant and is respondent no. 3 in the appeal before me, was protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act of 1850. As the Judicial Officer was held to be protected, the learned Munsif also dismissed the suit against the State of U. P. on the ground that the State could not be vicariously responsible for an act of a Government servant who was protected. The lower appellate Court had endorsed the view of the learned Munsif that the Judicial Officer was protected. But, it held that the State of U. P. was vicariously liable for the negligence of the Ahalmad. It, therefore, allowed the appeal of the plaintiffs-respondents and awarded Rs. 500/- as damages to them. The State of U. P. has appealed. The Judicial Officer, impleaded as a respondent, has not put in appearance.

3. It has been conte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document