Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Case study on a problem, Thesis of Law

It is a case study on a given issue along with the relevant case laws.

Typology: Thesis

2020/2021

Uploaded on 03/09/2021

lovely-princess-1
lovely-princess-1 🇮🇳

5

(1)

5 documents

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
FACTSHEET- 11
ISSUE:
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
3. Section 451 of Crpc:
Section -451 of Crpc talks about the order for custody and disposal of property pending
trial in certain cases.
According to this section when the property is produced before the criminal court
during any enquiry or trial the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper
custody of such property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial ,and if the
property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do
the court may after recording such evidence as if thinks necessary order if to be sold or
otherwise disposed of.
For the purpose of this section ,“property” includes:-
(a) Property of any kind or document which is produced before the court or which is in its
custody.
(b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which
appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Case study on a problem and more Thesis Law in PDF only on Docsity!

FACTSHEET- 11

ISSUE:

 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

  1. Section 451 of Crpc:** Section -451 of Crpc talks about the order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases. According to this section when the property is produced before the criminal court during any enquiry or trial the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial ,and if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do the court may after recording such evidence as if thinks necessary order if to be sold or otherwise disposed of. For the purpose of this section ,“property” includes:- (a) Property of any kind or document which is produced before the court or which is in its custody. (b) Any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence.

ANALYSIS:

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.