TMI Blog1963 (5) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Code they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Venugopal was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under section 343 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them were acquitted of the charge under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences imposed on them were directed to run concurrently. These orders of conviction and sentence were set aside by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal and the three respondents have been acquitted of all the charges. Against that decision the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed the present appeal, after obtaining special leave from this Court. Of the three respondents, Venugopal was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli police station, in Cuddapah District from July 20, 1956, to February 22, 1957; Rangaswamy was a Head Constable attached to the same police station from May 4, 1955 to February 20, 1957; Subbaiah was a Police Constable at that police station from April 10, 1955 to February 20, 1957. On July 21, 1952 Mittala Kamal Sab, a resident of Vempalli town lodged at the Vempalli police station an information of -house-breaking and theft in his house. After investigation a charge-sheet wag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he had sold the gajjalu to Appalla of Nallasani vandlapplli. Following up this information the three respondents accompanied by Patra Obanna and Arige Ramanna went to that village and qeustioned Nallasani Appalla. One gold gajjlu was seized from his house and to check on Arige Ramanna's statement that this had been sold by him to Apparent in the presence of Fakruddin of Kataruppalli, the Sub-Inspector tried to contact Fakruddin. Fakruddin was found at Madanapplli on January 8, 1957; but he denied any knowledge about the sale of gold gajjalu by Arige Ramanna to Appalla. The respondent Venugopal then returned to Kadiri police station bringing Arige Ramanna and Apparent with him. It was then the early morning of January 9, 1957. Both Arige Ramanna and Appalla were then taken by Venugopal into the Sub-Inspector's room at Kadiri police station. Subbase and Rangaswamy also went into the room. There, after some further interrogation, Arige Ramanna was beaten up by Subbase, Rangaswamy, and Kamal Sab, who was the complainant in the theft case, under the instructions of Venugopal. These three respondents as well as Kamal Sab pleaded not guilty. We are not concerned with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oint was raised on their behalf that the prosecution was barred by reason of the provisions of s. 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859 (hereinafter referred to as the police Act ). Thereupon Basi Reddy J, before whom this point was raised framed the following question : In the circumstances of this case, is the prosecution of the appellants barred by limitation by reason of the provision of section 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859 ? and referred it for determination by a Division Bench of two judges. The Division Bench to whom the case was referred this question and a further question framed by them, viz., In what circumstances, the bar of limitation prescribed by s. 53 of the Madras District Police Act would be available to an accused officer ?, for determination by a Full Bench. After discussing the relevant legal provisions and authorities the Full Bench disposed of the matter in these words : We would therefore answer the first question referred to us by saying that the bar of limitation prescribed by s. 53 of the Act would be available to an accused officer only when the It complained of has been committed in the discharge of his official duties. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person against whom a prosecution has been launched can get the benefit of the three months period of limitation thus prescribed, it must appear either, (i) that the act complained of was done under the provisions of the Police Act or (ii) the act complained of was done under the provisions of some other law in force conferring powers on the police or (iii) the act complained of was intended to be done under the provisions of the Police Act, i. e., though strictly speaking the act was not done under the provisions of the Act, the intention of the accused in doing the act was to act under the provisions of the Police Act or (iv) the act complained of was intended to be done under the provisions of some other law in force conferring powers on the police i.e., though the act was strictly speaking not done under the provisions of such other law the intention of the accused in doing the act was to act under such provisions. The Police Act contains several provisions under which the police officers or other persons may act or intend to act. Section 6 vests in police authorities appointed under the Act all powers riot inconsistent with the provisions of the Act which up to the passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also to be commenced within three months of the act complained of. It is clear that if in any of this cases the prosecution is commenced beyond three months after the act complained of, it will be the duty of the courts to dismiss the same. But it is equally clear that unless the act complained of appears to have been done or intended to be done under the provisions of the police Act or of the other laws conferring powers on the police the protection of s. 53 will not be available. Thus, if the prosecution is for an offence under s. 341 of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by the act of closing a street or passage in or near which a fire is burning in exercise of powers under s. 42 (b) of the Police Act, or for an offence under. 426 of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed by the pulling down of a house for the purposes of extinguishing a fire, under s. 42 (e) of the Police Act, the prosecution must fail unless brought within three months of the act complained of So also if a police officer is prosecuted for an offence under s. 323 of the Indian Penal Code said to have been committed in making an arrest, the prosecution must fail unless commenced w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o state rather faintly-that these acts were done under the provisions of s. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section empowers any police officer investigating a crime or any other police officer acting on his requisition to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The section further provides that such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forefeiture. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the provisions of this section authorise the officer examining a person to beat him or to confine him for the purpose of inducing him to make a particular statement. It is worth noticing here s. 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The first sub-section of s. 163 prohibits any police officer from making any inducement, threat or promise for tile purpose of obtaining a statement. The second sub-section provides that no police officer shall prevent by caution or otherwise any person from making a statement which he may be disposed to make on his own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion in cases against the police for torture and causing death has to be conducted by a person of the rank of Assistant or Deputy Superintendent of police or by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the present case, though the initial investigation was conducted by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Penkondu, it was taken up from him by an Inspector of the Police, C.I.D., Hyderabad. It was this Inspector of Police who completed the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. It has to be noticed that the respondents do not say that the investigation was not in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case, as raised before the Session Court, apparently at the time of argument and again repeated here. is that the investigation by the Inspector contravened the Madras Police Standing Orders. Order No. 145 of the Madras Police Standing Orders prescribes the procedure, in respect of charges of torture or of death or grievous hurt against a police officer. This order it may be mentioned, superseded the previous order No. 157 on the subject and was in force in 1957. The main features of the procedure when the case occurs in the Mufassal in the State of Madras a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere can be no doubt that quite apart from the fact that the Government may and often should issue instructions to its officers, including police officers, such instructions have not however the authority of law. We are not satisfied therefore that the Standing Order No. 145 had the force of law, We are further of opinion that, in any case, the requirement of this order was merely directory and not mandatory. Noncompliance with the provisions of this order therefore does not make the investigation of the case illegal. It is also to be mentioned that no objection that the investigation had been conducted in violation of the Standing Orders appears to have been taken at any stage earlier than the trial in the Sessions Court. It will be proper to hold therefore on the authority of Rishbud's Case ([1955] 1 S. C. R. 1150), that even if the provision that the investigation had to be held and completed by a Magistrate had the force of law and was mandatory the trial would not be rendered invalid unless it was shown that miscarriage of justice had been caused on account of the illegal investigation. Learned Counsel was not able to show how the accused were in any way prejudiced by reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is proved by the direct evidence of the witnesses that Arige Ramanna was taken by him to Kadiri police station on the morning of January 9, and not allowed to go away. We are unable to find a single circumstance inconsistent with the prosecution case that these three respondent beat up Arige Ramanna at Kadiri police station for the purpose of extorting from him information as regards the disposal of a gold gajjalu that might lead to further detection in connection with the case of housebreaking and theft committed at the house of Kamal Sab in 1952. The circumstances that have been established are in our opinion incapable of explanation of any other reasonable hypothesis than the truth of the prosecution case that these respondents voluntarily caused hurt to Arige Ramanna for the purpose of extorting from him information regarding the disposal of the gold gajjalu which might lead to fuller detection of the crime. The circumstances speak so clearly that any other view would, we think, be unreasonable, arbitrary and indeed perverse. On a consideration of the injuries that were caused, we do not find it possible to be certain that the respondents had the intention of causing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
