9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Whether the appellant's prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. Whether Rule 542 of the Bombay Police Manual barred the appellant's prosecution. 3. Whether the appellant was guilty under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for preparing a false Panchnama and report. Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Limitation under Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 The primary question was whether the appellant's prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The section states: "the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained, or shall be dismissed, if instituted more than six months after the date of the act complained of." The prosecution was initiated much later than six months after the alleged act, which involved the preparation of a false Panchnama and report on February 24, 1954. The court analyzed whether these acts were done "under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority" as per the Act. It was established that preparing a correct Panchnama and report was indeed the duty of the police officer. The court concluded that even if these documents were false, they were still prepared under the "colour of duty" since the officer used his legal duty as a cover for his corrupt actions. This interpretation was supported by various legal dictionaries and previous judgments, including those from the Bombay High Court. The court rejected the state's contention that Section 161(1) applied only to offences under the Bombay Police Act and not to those under the Indian Penal Code. The term "offence" was broadly defined to include any act punishable by law. Therefore, the prosecution should have been dismissed under Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Issue 2: Rule 542 of the Bombay Police Manual The appellant contended that Rule 542 of the Bombay Police Manual barred his prosecution as prior permission from the District Superintendent of Police had not been obtained. Both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected this defense, stating that Rule 542 had no statutory force. The Supreme Court did not delve into this issue further, as the primary focus was on the limitation under Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Issue 3: Guilt under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code The appellant was charged under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code for preparing a false Panchnama and report to save an individual caught with Ganja. Both the Trial Court and the High Court found the appellant guilty. However, given the Supreme Court's interpretation of the limitation period under Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, the conviction and sentence were set aside. Conclusion The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The case against the appellant was dismissed.
|
