Intern
Forum Replies Created
- Replies
This question can be answered through section 166 of Indian Contract Act, which states that “Bailee not responsible on re-delivery to bailor without title.—If the bailor has no title to the goods, and the bailee, in good faith, delivers them back to, or according to the directions of, the bailor, the bailee is not responsible to the owner in respect of such delivery”
The purpose of law in India is not to held liable but to make people accountable for their actions. The intention is one of the main objects or we can say criteria to make someone liable for their actions, as this question specifically shows that bailee assumes another person as real owner, there is no bad intention so he cannot be liable or we can say he cannot be sued .
For example: If A and B are partners and C is bailee who gets the truck for purpose of Bailment by A, after sometimes C returns Truck to B in the assumption of B being partner so he can have title. So A cannot sue C for not delivering Truck to himThe question mentioned above is related to section 166 of Indian Contract Act, 1872. The section clearly states that “if the bailor has no title to the goods, and the bailee, in good faith, delivers them back to, or according to the direction of, the bailor, the bailee is not responsible to the owner in respect of such delivery.”
The interpretation of this section clarifes that the bailee cannot be sued if the baluee deliver them back in good faith. If the bailee has delivered tha good as per the direction of bailor, he can not be held responsible for the same.
Similar, if it any suspicion appears to the bailed that the person claiming the good, may not be the owner, then in such case the bailee can sue to find out whether the person is real owner or not. In both the situations, the bailee can not be sued as the bailee was acting in good faith.This question is primarily related to Section 166 of ICA, 1872.
As we know that the ‘bailee’ is the person to whom the goods are delivered by the ‘bailor’ for some purpose and when such purpose is accomplished, the goods delivered must be returned to the bailor or dispose of the goods at the direction of the bailor.
Section 166 of ICA, 1872 talks about the non- liability of bailee when he delivers the goods to the bailor without the title. It states that if the bailee delivers the goods to the bailor or according to his direction in good faith to the bailor, who does not have any title to it, then the bailee is not liable to the actual owner of the goods.
In Bank of Bombay v. Nandlal [(1910) 12 BOM LR 36], N entrusted certain bales of cotton to L, a warehouseman. L bailed the cotton with B to secure the advances made by B to L. Subsequently, L redeemed the bail and cotton was returned by B to or to the order of L. N sued B and L claiming the delivery of the goods or their value. It was held that whether the bailment by L to B was or was not valid under section 178 but the return of goods by B, in good faith, to L was a complete defense to the suit as per section 166.
The rule of the common law is that generally a bailee is estopped from denying his bailor’s title. He is justified in delivering to the bailor or according to his directions but he is not justified in refusing to deliver the bailor unless he is under the effective pressure of an adverse claim and defends upon the right and title and by the authority of third persons so claiming.Thank you for the question.
Let me first quote the provision. It reads that; if the – bailor has no title, the bailee can have none, for the bailor can give no better title than he has. Therefore, if the bailor has no title to the goods, and the bailee in good faith, delivers them back to or dealt with them according to the directions of the bailor, the bailee is not responsible to the owner in respect of such delivery (The Indian Contract Act 1872 § 166).
There is a landmark judgment of the year 1940 which may help in answering your question: The case was K.G. Patel v. T.K.V.R.V. Chettyar
In this case, following principle was laid down: If someone other than the bailor is claiming the goods bailed from the bailee, then in such case bailee may apply to the court to stop delivery of the goods to the bailor and to decide the title to the goods. So if the bailee had the notice from the third party about the defective title of the bailor, than the bailee is not supposed to deliver the goods, back to the bailor, if he does so, liability to pay damages can be fixed on the bailee (The Indian Contract Act 1872 § 167).
I will also quote the facts of this case in short, here, the paddy was brought to the mill by the bailor for milling and the miller was informed that the rice had been sold to a particular person but later on the bailor gave a notice to the miller asking him not to send the rice to that person and therefore miller delivers the rice back to the bailor, the miller who is in the position of a bailee was held liable to pay damages for his act (K.G. Patel v. T.K.V.R.V. Chettyar A.I.R. 1940 Rang. 249 at 249:191. IC. 532).
Ergo, in the example mentioned by you, so if the bailee is acting under good faith and then re-delivers the goods to the bailor then he has no liability but where he knows that the person asking for the goods is misrepresenting him as a bailor and that person categorically has no title, then if the bailee delivers goods to that person, so he can be sued and is also liable to pay damages.Section 166 of Indian Contract Act 1872: “Bailee not responsible on redelivery to bailor without title”
166. If the bailor has no title to the goods, and the bailee, in good faith, delivers them back to, or according to the directions of, the bailor, the bailee is not responsible to the owner in respect of such delivery.
Ques- Can the bailee be sued for not delivering goods to the real owner as he assumes another person to be the real owner in good faith?
If the bailee knows that the person claiming the goods is not the real owner of the goods and is misrepresenting himself, the bailee can file a suit against that person and prevent the delivery of the goods to him.
Example- A went to bail some diamonds to C. Upon taking the delivery B goes to C, representing himself to be the real owner of the diamonds. But B suspects him not to be the real owner and files a suit against and stops the delivery of the goods.
If the bailee delivers the goods to a person who is not the real owner of the goods and acts in good faith assuming him to be the owner of the goods, the real owner cannot sue the bailee for delivering the goods to the other person. According to the section, if the bailee delivers according to the direction of the bailor or delivers them in good faith then is not liable or responsible for such delivery.
Example- A and C together went to bail some diamonds to B. Upon taking the delivery C alone went. B in good faith gives the diamonds to C assuming him to be with A. Later turns out that C was not the representing A and had stolen the diamonds. Now the real owner cannot sue B the bailee for his action.Section 43 of the Criminal Procedure Code mentions about the arrest of someone by a private person.
Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.
Any person in the definition literally refers to ‘any person’ here, and not just a citizen but also a foreigner, if it is to be believed that someone is committing a non-bailable, cognizable offence.
After the arrest by a private person, the police officer has to re-arrest the person after having taken him to the nearest police station according to Section 41 of CrPC. But for the arrest to happen, the arresting person must believe that the offence taking place is a cognizable one.
A cognizable offence is an offence in which the police officer as per the first schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, can arrest the convict without a warrant and can start an investigation without the permission of the court.
There is also another reason to such immediate arrest – If a person believes that the accused will have to be arrested immediately because he is most likely to flee.
A person can also call a police station and give details about the offender and the offence, etc. But there may be a case where making unnecessary delay will only make the offender go away. In such cases, the person has the right to arrest him/her. There can be many instances where it is impossible for the police to arrive urgently, in such cases, time is of essence and this provision proves to be helpful.Appeals in criminal cases may be preferred by the prosecution as mentioned under proviso of section 372 of code of criminal procedure,1973 but there are also other sections which deals with appeals by anyone other than the prosecutions such as section 351, Section 363(4), section 374, section 377 and Section 380 of Code of criminal procedure.
Section 372 ( proviso) of CrPC states that the victim have the right to appeal against any order by the court under three circumstances:
1. Acquitting the accused
2. convicting for a lesser offence
3. imposing inadequate compensation
Whereas, Section 351(1) of CrPC states about appeals from convictions only under sections 344,345,349 and 350. An appeal from such conviction by a court of small causes shall lie to court of session and the appeal by sub section(1) is not controlled by any other provisions of the code. Therefore, an appeal against above mentioned sections only lies under this subsection even when the fine is imposed.Section 363(4) states when the accused is sentenced to death by any court then the accused have the right to appeal whereas proviso to section 372 only talks about the right of victims to appeal.
Section 374 of Code of criminal procedure also states about appeals from convictions on a trial which is held by the high court may appeal to the Supreme Court whereas proviso to section 372 of CrPC states about the appeal against an order convicting the accused for the lesser offence.Even in section 377 of CrPC it mentioned that the state government or the central government can file an appeal regarding inadequate sentence.In this case, the accused had a right to plead for acquittal or for reduction of sentence whereas proviso to section 372 talks about the right of victim to appeal against the same order.
Section 380 of CrPC is stating about the fact that an accused person whose sentence is unappealable has a right of appeal under this section only his co accused has been given an appealable sentence.
It has been rightly said that nobody is perfect. This is applicable to judges as well. There are chances of mistake & error in their judgment. Sec 372 of CrPC deals with provision of appeals in criminal cases but there is no doubt that proviso to Sec 372 must be given life, to benefit victim of an offence . In a historic Verdict of Suresh Vs State of Haryana, the Supreme Court ruled that beside the state, third person i.e. the victim can also file an appeal. The Code of Criminal Procedure deals with appeal from Section 372 to 394.
There are different orders against which appeal can be filed:-
• Order acquitting the accused
• Order convicting for lesser offence
Section 24 of CrPC lays down that a Public Prosecutor should be appointed for conducting appeal and he may appear and plead on behalf of the victim and he can do that without any written authority. The court will have to follow the principle of natural justice and the principle of Audi Alteram Partem. The third person should also be given the right to appeal in criminal cases. In a 2:1 majority judgment, a three judge bench held that section 372 of CrPC has to be given liberal interpretation to benefit the victim and after the judgment victims was also allowed to appeal in the criminal cases. Besides the state, the victims are also entitled to appeal against the orders by the court. The above provisions clearly indicate that there is scope of third party intervention in criminal cases. The court also held that it would be unfair to disallow the victim or any third party from having any representation. One of the main aim of punishment under criminal law is deterrence and as a good principle it really makes sense to permit third party intervention in criminal cases.In 2008 Parliament on the basis of the 154th Law Commission Report and Malimath Committee Report, which was victim orientated in approach, amended certain provisions of Code of Criminal Proceedings (CrPC) and proviso to section 372 of CrPC was added to confer statutory right upon the victim to prefer an appeal before the High Court . The proviso to Section 372 provides three circumstances under which the victim of a crime can file an appeal to higher court. They are Acquittal of accused, Conviction of accused and Inadequacy of compensation to victim.
However it is not the only provision which allows for a party other than the prosecution to file appeal against judgement of the trial Court. Such a provision is already into existence under section 378(4) of the code. Section 378(4) allows for an appeal against acquittal of the accused by the complainant. When the accused, the complainant may make an application to High Court, which may then grant a Special Leave to the complainant to appeal.
Clearly while this section allows for an appeal similar to that of Section 372, the conditions and procedures are not the same.
From the language of the sections, we may locate a few clear distinctions between the two provisions for parties to appeal a decision. They include-1. The word used in section 372 proviso is victim. On the other hand, Section 378(4) uses the word complainant.
2. Section 372 proviso lays down three conditions under which a victim can appeal – acquittal, conviction for lesser offence and inadequate compensation. Section 378(4) restricts itself to acquittal.
3. Section 378(4) seeks an application to be made to the High Court and then special leave is granted. Whereas 372 proviso does not require such special leave from High CourtThe major change which was brought in Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was through the 2006 amendment. Through this amendment, there was an inclusion of subsection. The Section 156 was number as subsection 1 and further a sub-section was added stating that “Nothing in this section shall dissentile the party so permitted, to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.”. It means on a leave of court, the hostile witness can be cross-examined by the party calling him and his evidence is relied on to an extend it supports the evidence of the prosecution version. Moreover, it is totally on the discretion of the court whether to consider the testimony of the witness or not. The same can be done by due care and caution; if the court finds it creditworthy, it can be considered as a evidence in light of the other evidence on record.
The subsection (2) was added in the section 154 to prevent the automatic rejection of evidence of hostile witness during a cross examination by a public prosecutor. The evidence remains admissible and even the conviction can also be based upon his testimony if corroborated by the other evidence. Thus, a cross examination of his own witness doesnot lead to effacing his evidence.In Section 154 of IEA, 1872 after the amendment, it was applied that the Court “may”, i.e, by its own choice or discretion can permit the party to question his own witness as a part of chief and cross-examination. The Court after the examination by discretion can declare the witness hostile. But that doesn’t stop the Court from not considering the witness’s testimony in the case. If the Judge finds something credible in that process by reading and considering the evidence of the witness and with due caution and care then he may accept that part of authentic testimony with other evidence on the record.
Hence, declaring witnesses as “hostile” does not result in automatic rejection of their evidence. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no conviction imposed upon his testimony only if verified by other reliable evidence provided.
Here this type of cross-examination plays a very important role both in intercepting the wrong witness and getting a faithful evidence to be admissible (though the witness is hostile) in the trial.section 65A and section 65B are both amendments introduced by parliament dealing with electronic evidence and their admissibility. these provisions have always been scrutinized and interpreted in differently making it further more difficult to define and understand them.
in the case of Arjun Pandirao Khotkar v Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors 2020 SCC Online SC571 admissibility of electronic evidence CD was questioned on the fact that the evidence wasnt submitted with the required certificate as per sec 65B (4). earlier honorable high court ruled that the evidence that is CD was admissible even without the certificate because the person who had the control of the system and CD gave his testimony as a witness. this ruling of high court was then challenged in honorable supreme court and the apex court then took into consideration a previous case of shafi mohammad v state of himachal pradesh (2018) 2SCC 801 and declared it per incurium as it had held that the requirement of certificate under 65B(4) is procedural and can be relaxed if the court of law thinks fit of it in interest of justice. the apex court upheld the judgement given in the Anvar PV v PK basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 that the certificate as mentioned in the section 65B(4) of evidence act is mandatory and required to be exhibited along with the electronic evidence to make the evidence admissible. it also held that the certificate is not mandatory if the evidence is a primary evidence and an original evidence.Basically section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 allows the person who calls a witness for chief examination to do cross-examination as well, which in normal court practice, opponent counsel would do. But the privilege can be opted upon the permission of the court. In simple terms, the section empowers the court with such discretion.
The above-said point got more clarification once the 2005 criminal amendment act was passed. Through this amendment, the section was added with a second subsection. To make it precise, the section after the amendment has been provided with the appreciation of the point which was installed before the amendment.
There was a widening confusion on the reliability of evidence collected out of the statements made by witnesses who’re cross-examined by their own counsel i.e., using section 154. To address the same, legislature brought the amendment and aided the courts in deciding the nature of such statements. Thereby, the intent behind the whole section was reinstated. Due to which, the chance of misinterpretation was reduced and fairness in decision making ensured. Hence, the purpose of the section would have not been served if not the subsection was added.The aforementioned section deals with aspects of re-examining/cross-examination of a witness, for the case put forth by the party, especially considering the evidentiary value of the statement of the witness already on record before the court. This is especially the case when the witness turns hostile to the case presented by a party, for which the cross examination of the witness is allowed. To preserve thus the evidentiary value and to examine the contents of the statement by the witness again by the party bringing forth the witness, the allowance contained under this section is necessary. This is thus contained in the section where on the courts discretion cross-examination of own witness is allowed. However, the recorded statements of the witness before the court has to be corroborated and adjudged by the presiding justice(s) so as to ascertain the inclusion of the statements presented before the court. Holistically, this section can also be termed as checking the credibility of the witness thus brought before the court to depose.
Both section 237 and section 188 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 somewhat deal with the extent of the agent’s authority. However, there is a basic difference between the two.
• Section 188 states that an agent is authorized to do not only the work allocated to him by the principal, but also every lawful thing required for completing such act. Similarly, if an agent is appointed to conduct a business, he has the authority to do all such things done within the normal course of the business. Let us understand this with an example.
Suppose Aruna appoints Aparna to deliver a parcel to another person in Shillong. To do the task, Aparna will have to avail some means of transport, let us say, a train. Therefore, seat-booking in the train becomes an authorized act.
When an agent does an authorized act, by general rule, the principal becomes liable for such acts. In cases of unauthorized acts, the agent himself is liable.
• Now that a distinction has been established between an authorized and an unauthorized act of the agent, section 237 will be easy to comprehend.
Section 237 talks about a situation where the principal has made a third party believe that some unauthorized act of the agent, in fact, was authorized. It may include obligations to third persons. Such beliefs can be induced both by words or the conduct of the principal.
In this case, even when the agent works outside the scope of his authority, the principal will be held liable and be bound by such acts or obligations to the third party.
For example, Aruna gives expressed instructions to her agent Aparna not to sell a defective video game set. Ignoring the instruction, Aparna sells the set to a customer anyway and the transaction happens in presence of Aruna. The customer may make Aruna liable for the defect in the game set. Estoppel is applied on the principal from making herself exempt from the liability in this case.
