JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - The plaintiff appeals. He came to court for damages for wrongful confinement.

2. It appears that for the assessment year 1957-58, a sum of Rs. 4,622.50 P. was due as arrears of sales tax from firm Hira Lal Bimal Prakash. This firm had two partners, Hira Lal and Jawahar Lal. It has been found affirmatively by both the courts below that the plaintiff-appellant, Bimal Prakash, though a son of Jawahar Lal, was himself not a partner in this firm. The Sales Tax Officer issued a recovery certificate directing that the arrears of the sales tax be recovered from Hira Lal. In the course of the recovery proceedings, the respondents took into custody the plaintiff, namely, Bimal Prakash. They demanded jaayment of the arrears of Sales Tax from him. On refusal to pay on the ground that he was not liable because he was not a partner of the firm, they took him in custody and put him in the civil lock-up. Ultimately. the arrears were paid that very day, and, thereafter, in the evening, he was released from custody.

3. The trial court found that the plaintiff, Bimal Prakash was not liable to pay the an-ears of sales tax, and he could not be arrested in proceedings to recover the same. His arrest and confinement were, therefore, wrongful. It was further found ,,that the persons, who made the arrest, acted in good faith, and were not personally liable, but, in view of the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, the State was liable vicariously. On a consideration of the evidence, it fixed the amount of damages at Rs. 150/-, and decreed the suit for that sum only. The appellate court confirmed the findings that the plaintiff was not a partner of the firm, that the recovery certificate was issued against Hira Lal only and that the plaintiff was not liable to pay the arrears of the sales tax, but was arrested illegally. It also upheld ,the finding that the various defendants, who participated in the arrest and the lockup of the plaintiff, acted bona fide and in good-faith, but the State was, in law, liable vicariously. It also held that the plaintiff would be entitled to Rs. 1,100/-. But since all the defendants were found to have acted in good faith, the suit was dismissed.

4. For the plaintiff-appellant, it was urged that. in cases of illegal arrest by persons in authority, malice in fact is not required to he established. Malice in law is sufficient to a claim for damages or compensation. But, for the respondents, Section 334 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was pressed in service, which protects the officers and servants of the Government for acts clone in good faith and in the course of execution of the duties and discharge of functions imposed by or under this Act, against any liability civil or criminal. If this provision were to apply, the authorities would not be liable, provided the act was done in good faith. The courts below have found that the respondents acted in good faith. Prima facie, they would be protected, and would not be liable to any damages. But, it seems to me that this provision would not apply to the present case. The firm Hira. Lal Bimal Prakash, which was in arrears, was situate in the town of Farrukhabad. The partners of that firm as well as the plaintiff were residents of that town. The arrest and confinement of the plaintiff took place within the town of Farrukhabad. It is well known that Farrukhabad is a Municipal area. Under Section 339 (c) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 shall be deemed to be amended to the ex-tent mentioned in column 3 of List II of Schedule III of the Zamindari Abolition Act, in its application to such areas to which the Zamindari Abolition Act extends. Serial No. 28 of the aforesaid List II re-peals Sections 58 to 188 of the Land Revenue Act (which are in Chapter V to VIII) , which dealt with procedure for recovery of land revenue. So, the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act,