TMI Blog1919 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the suit did not lie against the Secretary of State and should be brought against the Government officials alleged to be guilty of the tort is question; that even if the Secretary of State could be held ordinarily liable for the torts of his servants, no such liability attached to the defendant on the facts Bet out in the plaint(sic) that the plaint was vague and indefinite in that it did not specify who were the servants and agents alleged to be guilty of the wrong done to the plaintiff, or the acts which were complained of as being negligent and malicious; and finally that it was not stated how and why defendant could be held responsible for the unspecified acts of servants and agents not named in the plaint. It appears that after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eventual discharge by the Magistrate, 1st Class, and has arrived at the conclusion that there was no reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution. He has, however, dismissed plaintiff's suit on the ground that the District Loco, Superintendent, North Western Railway, Rawalpindi, was specifically named in the amended plaint as the servant or agent of the defendant who had committed the tortious act complained of and that it had been proved by the evidence on the record that the said District Loco. Superintendent was not the actual prosecutor in the criminal case, was not directly responsible for the plaintiff's prosecution and consequently there could have been no malice on his part in respect of the prosecution. The Judge fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected the institution of the criminal proceedings, and we are asked to allow the amendment at this stage. On behalf of the respondent, Mr. Herbert, Officiating Government Advocate, has taken exception to the finding of the Subordinate Judge as regards the absence of reasonable and probable cause for the prosecution and has urged that in any event plaintiff's claim must fail, because the criminal proceedings against him were instituted by the late Mr. Wallace, Deputy Inspector General of Police, whose action in the matter was bona fide and in no way actuated by malice in the sense that that term is understood in connection with cases of this kind, and also because the Secretary of State is not responsible for an act done by a Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utor--has not been established. Apart from this objection the suit must also fail on the ground that the Secretary of State cannot be held civilly liable for tortious acts committed by Police Officers in the performance of duties imposed upon them by the Legislature [see Shivabhajan Durgaprasad v. Secretary of State for India 28 B. 314 at p. 325 : 16 Bom. L.R. 65 and the remark of Maclean, C.J., in Moti Lal Ghose v. Secretary of State for India 9 C.W.N. 4(sic)5 at p. 497 : 1 C.L.J. 355]. It is unnecessary for us, upon the view that we take, to discuss the more general question regarding the civil liability of the Secretary of State for wrongs committed by the servants and agents of Government. We dismiss this appeal with costs. - - TaxT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
