Facts of the Case
Certain ornaments belonging to an individual were recovered by the police during the course of investigation of a criminal case. After the disposal of the case by the competent court, the ornaments remained in police custody pending return to the rightful owner. However, due to negligence and lack of proper care, the ornaments were stolen or lost while in police custody. The owner of the ornaments claims compensation from the Government on the ground that the loss occurred while the property was under the exclusive control of State authorities. The issue arises whether the Government is liable to compensate the owner for the loss caused by the negligence of its officials.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the Government is liable for loss of property kept in police custody.
- Whether negligence of police officials attracts vicarious liability of the State.
- Whether such loss violates the owner’s right to property and right to compensation.
- Whether the act falls under sovereign or non-sovereign functions of the State.
Legal Principles Covered to Support Case Proceedings and Judgements
The doctrine of vicarious liability makes the State responsible for wrongful acts committed by its employees in the course of employment. Custody and safekeeping of seized property is a non-sovereign function, and negligence in such duty attracts State liability.
In State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), the Supreme Court held that the State is liable for negligence of its employees performing non-sovereign functions. Similarly, in State of Gujarat v. Memon Mahomed Haji Hasam (1967), it was held that when property is seized by police, the State has a duty to take reasonable care, and failure to do so makes the State liable to compensate the owner.
Further, Article 300 of the Constitution of India permits suits against the Government, and deprivation of property without compensation violates Article 300A. Loss due to negligence cannot be justified under sovereign immunity.
Possible Judgement
The court is likely to hold that the Government is liable to compensate the owner for the loss of ornaments. Since the property was stolen due to negligence while in police custody, the State cannot escape liability by pleading sovereign immunity. The act of safekeeping seized property is a non-sovereign function, and failure to discharge it properly amounts to actionable negligence. Accordingly, the owner is entitled to monetary compensation from the Government.
About lawgnan
Questions on government liability, sovereign immunity, and police negligence are frequently asked in Administrative Law exams. Understanding how courts distinguish sovereign and non-sovereign functions is crucial for problem-based answers. For more exam-oriented Administrative Law notes, landmark case analyses, judicial review topics, and structured problem answers, visit lawgana.in. LawGana is specially designed for Indian law students preparing for LLB, judiciary, and competitive examinations. Follow lawgana.in to build strong legal concepts and write high-scoring answers with confidence.
