2000 (9) TMI 1054 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the complaint against the appellants was barred by limitation u/s 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act.
2. Whether Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be invoked to condone the delay in filing the complaint.
3. Interpretation of Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act in relation to offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Summary:

Issue 1: Limitation u/s 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act
The appellants, a Sub-Inspector and a Police Constable, contended that the complaint filed against them was barred by limitation as per Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance of any complaint against police officers unless it is filed within six months from the date of the alleged offence. The trial court and the High Court dismissed this contention, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Invocation of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The High Court held that u/s 473 of the Code, courts have the jurisdiction to condone delays in filing complaints to meet the ends of justice, even without a formal application. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that Section 473 is intended to apply only to the periods of limitation prescribed in Chapter XXXVI of the Code and cannot be invoked to circumvent the limitation period prescribed u/s 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act
The Supreme Court examined whether the bar u/s 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act applies only to offences specified in the Act or extends to offences under the Indian Penal Code. The Court noted that the provision uses the term "any offence," indicating that it is not restricted to offences under the Kerala Police Act alone. The Court also distinguished the scope of Section 64(3) from Section 197(1) of the Code, emphasizing that the former imposes an absolute ban on taking cognizance of offences after the specified period, whereas the latter requires sanction for prosecution.

The Court further reasoned that acts such as wrongful confinement and assault by police officers cannot be considered as acts done in pursuance of their duty or authority. Therefore, such acts do not attract the protection u/s 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants could not claim the benefit of the limitation period u/s 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act. The Court emphasized that interpreting the provision to provide immunity to police officers for acts of torture or wrongful confinement would lead to dangerous consequences.