TN ordered to pay 11.5L relief to man for illegal detention

MADURAI: After six years of legal battle, a 35-year-old man from Kerala, who spent 229 days in jail for a false case filed against him in 2006 by the Narcotics Intelligence Bureau-Crime Investigation Department (NIB-CID) in Tuticorin, for not giving bribe will receive Rs 11.5 lakh compensation from the Tamil Nadu government.
The Madurai bench of the Madras high court gave this direction to Tamil Nadu's home secretary to pay compensation to the petitioner, M Anumohan with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the writ petition.
According to the petitioner, his brother was studying in Sardar Raja Engineering College, Tirunelveli. Due to some issue in the college, he and two others were going to meet the vice-principal when sub-inspector and his team waylaid them. Later, the SI took them to a hotel and demanded Rs 2 lakh. As they did not give it, an FIR against them stating that they transported 24 kg of ganja. Thereafter, he came out on bail and the case was transferred to the CB-CID which filed a report that the petitioner was innocent. Following it, he sought compensation.
"By taking a total view of the matter and in the light of decided cases regarding payment of compensation and the advancement of law regarding public liability cases, the court was of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation at the rate of Rs 5,000 per day of his illegal detention," said Justice K K Sasidharan who passed the order on a petition filed by Anumohan in April, 2010 seeking Rs 50 lakh compensation.
The petitioner was confined within the four walls of the police station on February 10, 2006 and in jail for a period of 229 days, the judge said.
"The mental agony suffered by him would be much more than physical pain. The sub-inspector registered the false FIR against the petitioner by making use of his official position. The SI was acting as an instrument of the government and therefore the state is bound by his acts," the judge said.
Rejecting the government's contention that it was not liable to pay compensation, the judge said, "I am not in a position to agree to the government's contention. It was not possible for the SI to register a false case, in case he was not a police officer. It was only on account of his position, he registered the false case. He has gone to the extent of registering a narcotics case against the petitioner and two others knowing fully well that they were innocent. The state is therefore vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its servants. There is no escape from the said rule."
Relating to the quantum of compensation, the judge said, "It is not possible to assess the compensation in a case of this nature by mathematical precision and accuracy due to absence of straight jacket formula. Some amount of guess work is necessary. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.
"The petitioner, who is a resident of a neighbouring state, was made to suffer for months together just because he was not prepared to pay bribe to a police officer. Timely action taken by this court in transferring the investigation helped the petitioner come out of jail," the judge observed.