9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed documents. The charge had been framed against the appellant, along with other accused persons, by a common order dated 6.5.2005. On 4.10.2008, the appellant/plaintiff was acquitted. 3. On 22.12.2009, the appellant sent a legal notice to the State through Lt. Governor for compensation, to which he did not receive any reply. Thereafter, the appellant/plaintiff preferred a Writ Petition No. 1810/2010 before this Court against the State seeking compensation, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a suit in the appropriate Court. 4. The appellant then filed a civil suit for compensation of ₹ 20,00,000/- for causing harassment, mental agony, economical and physical losses, loss of reputation etc. due to false implica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for so many years at the hands of the respondents. He states that his case cannot be considered under Article 74 of the Limitation Act at all and is covered under some other provision of law. 10. The suit of the plaintiff was thrown out on a preliminary objection with regard to limitation, holding that the appellant had preferred a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution which was covered by Article 74 of the Limitation Act and the time available to institute such a suit was one year from the date of the accrual of cause of action, which had long expired. 11. Even counsel for the appellant concedes that if Article 74 were to apply, the suit is beyond limitation. Therefore, the only question that remains is under what provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d because of the bar of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 but because of bar of limitation in terms of Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 14. Counsel for the appellant points out that even in Balbir Singh's case (supra), the suit for compensation was brought by the plaintiff about 14 months after the acquittal, and therefore, was clearly barred by at least 2 months if Article 74 of the Limitation Act were to be applied. A perusal of the judgment shows that this aspect of the matter never came up for consideration at all. All that was being considered was whether the plea in bar in terms of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, which was raised by the respondent/defendant in that case by way of an interim application, was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
