Police expense recovery was invalid for lack of lawful apportionment, but restitution could still be claimed from the Secretary of State.

Police expense recovery under the Police Act, 1861 depended on lawful apportionment by the District Magistrate under Section 15(4); because the apportionment was made by a Deputy Magistrate and the later dismissal of the appeal did not cure that defect, distress recovery under Section 16 was invalid. Money collected for the benefit of the Local Government and applied to the police force could nevertheless be claimed back from the Secretary of State, since governmental responsibility extended to restitution of sums unlawfully taken and retained within the Indian revenue framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amount recovered from the appellant towards police expenses was lawfully realised under the Police Act, 1861; (ii) whether the suit for repayment was rightly instituted against the Secretary of State.

Issue (i): Whether the amount recovered from the appellant towards police expenses was lawfully realised under the Police Act, 1861.

Analysis: The apportionment of the increased police cost was required to be made by the District Magistrate under Section 15(4), but it was made by a Deputy Magistrate. The subsequent dismissal of the appellant's appeal did not amount to a valid apportionment by the District Magistrate. The recovery by distress under Section 16 therefore proceeded on an invalid apportionment.

Conclusion: The amount was not lawfully realised from the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for repayment was rightly instituted against the Secretary of State.

Analysis: The money had been collected for the benefit of the Local Government and applied in connection with the police force under its control. Under the governing provisions for suits against the Government of India, and in light of the Secretary of State's control over Indian revenues, the liability to restore money unlawfully taken could be fastened on the Secretary of State. The Court also treated the Local Government's receipt and use of the money as falling within that governmental responsibility.

Conclusion: The Secretary of State was rightly sued.

Final Conclusion: The recovery from the appellant being unlawful and the suit being maintainable against the Secretary of State, the appeal succeeded and the plaintiff obtained a decree for repayment with costs.

---