1971 (3) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Conviction under section 29 of the Police Act, 1861
- Prosecution barred by limitation under section 42 of the Act

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under section 29 of the Police Act, 1861:
The appellant, a constable, was convicted for being absent from duty on November 25, 1963, under section 29 of the Police Act. Despite presenting personal challenges and reasons for his absence, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine or undergo imprisonment. The appellant contested his conviction before the Sessions Judge and the High Court, but was unsuccessful. The legal counsel representing the appellant raised several contentions regarding the legality of the conviction, but the judgment focused on the issue of whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under section 42 of the Act.

2. Prosecution barred by limitation under section 42 of the Act:
The central question revolved around whether the prosecution initiated against the appellant was within the prescribed time limit under section 42 of the Act. Section 42 mandates that prosecutions for offenses under the Police Act must be commenced within three months of the alleged act. In this case, the appellant was charged for being absent from duty on November 25, 1963, and the notice initiating prosecution was issued on January 10, 1966, well beyond the three-month limit. The legal contention raised by the appellant's counsel was that the prosecution was time-barred, as it exceeded the statutory limitation period. The judgment analyzed the timeline of events, emphasizing that the prosecution should have commenced within three months of the offense. The court concluded that the prosecution against the appellant was indeed barred by limitation under section 42 of the Act.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and lower courts, and overturned the conviction and fine imposed on the appellant. The judgment emphasized that the prosecution against the appellant was initiated beyond the statutory three-month limit prescribed by section 42 of the Police Act, rendering it barred by limitation. As a result, the appellant's conviction was overturned, and any fine collected was ordered to be refunded.