TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Perambra complaining that the appellants have committed offences under Sections 325, 342, 330 and 506(1) IPC. The First Class Magistrate after examining the complaint on oath and after taking cognizance of the said offences issued process to the appellants. They entered appearance in the Magistrates court and raised preliminary objection that the magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences in view of the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the Kerala police Act (for short the KP Act) which fixed a period of six months from the date of commission of the offence for taking cognizance thereof. The magistrate over-ruled the objections. Appellants then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short the Code) for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complainant. They contended that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offences as the complaint was filed only after the expiry of six months of the alleged commission of the offences. A learned single judge of the High Court dismissed the petition as per the impugned order. For dealing with the question raised in this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him by this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any rule, order or direction lawfully made or given thereunder unless the suit or complaint is filed within six months of the date on which the offence or wrong is alleged to have been committed or done. Learned Single Judge of the High Court repelled the contention based on the sub-section on two premises. For the first premise he made the following observations: From the allegation made in the Annexure-A complaint it is clear that the allegation made against the petitioner are with regard to the commission of several offences punishable under the IPC. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the offence alleged to have committed is in the discharge of the official duties of the petitioners so as to attract the protection under sec.64 (3) of the Police Act in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that since Annexure-A complaint is barred by time the cognizance of the offence taken by the learned Magistrate is illegal, is not sustainable. The second premise is based on Section 473 of the Code. Learned Single Judge has observed thus on that aspect: Under Sec.473 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... templated in the said Section is only by way of an exception to the period fixed as per the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code. Section 473 of the Code therefore cannot operate in respect of any period of limitation prescribed under any other enactment. Hence we are unable to uphold the view adopted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that Section 473 of the Code can appropriately be invoked by the complainant for circumventing the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the K.P. Act. Shri L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the complainant made an endeavour to support the impugned order of the High Court by contending that the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the K.P. Act would be restricted to the offences specified in that Act and it cannot encompass any other offence under any enactments, particularly the penal code offences. To bolster up the contention learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Maulud Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh {1963 Supp.(2) SCR 38}. In that case one Police Head constable challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 218 of the IPC. As the High Court confirmed the conviction he approached this Court by speci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the words employed in those two different sub-sections (one in the K.P. Act and the other in the Code) are the same it has to be pointed out that the context envisaged in Section 197(1) of the Code or the purpose of providing a filter therein is demonstrably different from the object of Section 64(3) of the K.P. Act. Section 197(1) of the Code does not impose any absolute ban against taking cognizance of the offence, but it only says that the sanction contemplated therein is a condition precedent for taking such cognizance. It obviously is for preventing public servants from being subjected to frivolous prosecutions for discharging their official duties. On the other hand, Section 64(3) of the K.P. Act incorporates an absolute ban against taking cognizance of the offences of the type mentioned therein on the expiry of the period specified therein. That apart the words used in Section 197(1) of the Code for qualifying the offence are seemingly wider. Those words are these: any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. In Section 64(3) of the K.P. Act the offence is qualified as the offence commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot claim such act to be connected with the discharge of his authority or exercise of his duty unless he establishes that he did such acts in his defence or in defence of others or any property. Similarly, if a police officer wrongfully confines a person in the lock-up beyond a period of 24 hours without the sanction of a magistrate or an order of a court it would be an offence for which he cannot claim any protection in the normal course, nor can he claim that such act was done in exercise of his official duty. A policeman keeping a person in the lock-up for more than 24 hours without authority is not merely abusing his duty but his act would be quite outside the contours of his duty or authority. Ms. M. Jayshree, learned counsel for the appellants, made a last attempt to salvage the appellant from criminal proceedings on the strength of a recent decision rendered by this Court in K.K. Patel anr. vs. State of Gujarat anr. {2000 (6) SCC 195}. That decision was rendered in consideration of Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The phraseology used in that sub-section is far wider than Section 64(3) of the K.P. Act. Under the former protection is given for acts done un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
