

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
It is a case study on a given issue along with the relevant case laws.
Typology: Thesis
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The main issue of the given fact is as to what remedy is available to Y to recover his stolen property. Whether there was vicarious liability of the state for the tortious act of its employees in acting in the discharge of their statutory powers? Whether the respondent state was liable to compensate the plaintiff appellant for the loss caused to him by the negligence of the police officers (public servants) employed by the state? RELATED PROVISIONS:
1. Article 300(1) of the Indian constitution: Article 300(1) provides that the government of India may be sued in relation to its affairs in the like case as the dominion of India, subject to any law which may made by act of parliament. **2. Vicarious liability in law of tort
The remedy available to the Y for recovery of theft property is in proceeding of enquiry or trial. The fact shows that the trial has not been ended and during the proceeding of the trial, the theft property has been stolen away from the custody of police i.e., Malkhana. The object and scheme of the provision of the court appear to be that where the property which has been subject matter of an offence by the police .It ought not to be retained in the custody of the court or police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary .As the seizure of the property by the police amounts to a clear entrustment of the property to the government servant. The idea is that the property should be restored to the original owner after the necessity to retain it seizures. It is manifest that there may be two stages when the property may be returned to the owner. In the first place it may returned during any enquiry or trial. There may be then compelling regions also which may justify the disposal of the property to the owner or otherwise in the interest of justice. The object of the court seems to be that any property which is in control of the court either directly or indirectly should be disposed by the court and a just and proper order should be passed by the court regarding its disposal order. If the theft property is stolen away it is the duty of the court to direct the state government to make available necessary funds for retaining the case property to Y. RELEVANT CASE LAWS: In the case of Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain Vs State of UP ( AIR 1039,1965 SCR (1) 375) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since the police officer was acting in discharge of his sovereign power delegated by the law. The secretary of the state cannot be held liable for damages which has been caused by the act to the delegation of sovereign power of the state ,as such the criminal act which gave rise to the act, could not validly sustain a claim for damages against the state.