1965 (2) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellant's Unlawful Arrest Deemed Executive Action, Compensation Upheld

Anowar Hussain Versus Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

Anowar Hussain Versus Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee - 1965 AIR 1651 Issues Involved:1. Legality of the arrest and detention of the respondent.2. Applicability of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850.3. Determination of whether the appellant acted in a judicial or executive capacity.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the arrest and detention of the respondent:The respondent was arrested on March 17, 1950, by the Circle Inspector of Police under the authority of the appellant, who was the Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The arrest was made without any formal complaint or recorded information against the respondent. The respondent was detained until March 20, 1950, when he was released on bail by the local First Class Magistrate. The proceedings against the respondent were eventually closed on May 31, 1950, as no formal charges were lodged, and no First Information Report (FIR) was traceable. The Subordinate Judge and the High Court held that the arrest was 'reckless and without any lawful excuse,' as no judicial proceeding was initiated against the respondent based on the information received.2. Applicability of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850:The appellant claimed protection under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, arguing that he acted in the discharge of his judicial duties. Section 1 of the Act provides protection to judges, magistrates, and other persons acting judicially for acts done in the discharge of their judicial duties, provided they believed in good faith that they had jurisdiction. The Court examined whether the appellant acted judicially or in an executive capacity when ordering the respondent's arrest. The Subordinate Judge and the majority of the High Court judges found that the appellant did not act judicially but rather in an executive capacity, and thus, the protection of the Act did not apply.3. Determination of whether the appellant acted in a judicial or executive capacity:The appellant admitted that he did not take cognizance of any offence against the respondent and acted under the oral direction of the Deputy Commissioner. The Court emphasized that for the protection under the Judicial Officers' Protection Act to apply, the appellant needed to have acted judicially by taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found no evidence that the appellant acted judicially, as there was no formal complaint, police report, or recorded information leading to the respondent's arrest. The appellant's letter directing the arrest lacked the formalities of a judicial order, such as the seal of the Magistrate and a clear charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant acted in an executive capacity, following the Deputy Commissioner's direction, and not in the discharge of his judicial duties.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, holding that the appellant did not have the protection of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850, as he acted in an executive capacity. The arrest and detention of the respondent were deemed unlawful, and the decree for compensation of Rs. 5,000 was upheld. The appeal was dismissed with costs.