LIMITATION IN COMPLAINT/SUIT AGAINST POLICE PERSONAL

LIMITATION IN COMPLAINT/SUIT AGAINST POLICE PERSONAL



Prof. Sumer Chand vs Union of India and others


Facts


In this case the question before the Supreme Court was that whether the period of limitation for filing a suit for malicious prosecution against a member of the Delhi Police is governed by the provisions of Sec. 140 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 or by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963.


Held


Where a suit for malicious prosecution against two Police Officers alleging that one Police Officer who was in charge of Police post has registered a false, vexatious and malicious report against a person and another officer who was Station House Officer had filed the challan in the Court against him and another accused on the basis of the said report was filed after expiry of three months from acts complained of, it colour of office of the said officers and would fall within the ambit of S.140 (1) of Delhi Police Act because it was the duty of the said first officer being in charge of Police Post to record the report and so also it was the duty of another officer to file the challan in Court. The acts complained of were, therefore, done under the colour of office of the said officers and fell within the ambit of Section 140(1) of the Act. In such a case, the period of limitation for institution of the suit would be that prescribed in Section 140 and not the period prescribed Art. 74 of the Limitation Act. The Limitation Act is an enactment which consolidates and amends the law of the limitation of suit and other proceedings connected therewith. It is a law which applies generally to all suits and proceedings. therefore, in the nature of a general enactment governing the law of limitation. The Delhi Police Act has been enacted for the purpose of amending and consolidating the law relating to regulation of Police in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Act is a special enactment in respect of matters referred to therein, Section 140 of the Act imposes certain restrictions and limitation in the matter of institution of suits and prosecutions against Police Officers in respect of acts done by a Police Officer under colour of duty or authority or in excess of such duty or authority. Since the Act is a special law which prescribes a period of limitation different from the period prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act for suits against persons governed by the Act in relation to matters covered by Section 140, by virtue of S.29(2) of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed for such suits and not the period prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act.


_______________

*1993 Cr.L.J.3531





S.P.Vaithianathan vs K.Shanmuganathan*

Facts


Complainant made complaint to higher Police Officer regarding involvement of a particular Police Officer in illegal distillation. The aggrieved Police Officer through summons called the complainant his office and tortured him. No. action was taken by senior official against this ill-treatment of the complainant. He then filed Crimiinal Complaint under Section 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 506 Part II and 307 of the IPC. The learned CJM issued process, to this an objection was raised that the prosecution was barred by limitation in view of the provision in Sec.53 of the T.N.District Police Act, 1869, High Court upheld this contention and quashed the order by which process was issued.


The Supreme Court reversing the judgment of Madras High Court.


Held


It must be realized that in order to avail of the benefit of Sec.53 of the Act, the respondent must show that he acted ‘under’ the Act or any other law. Merely because the appellant was called through a summons issued under law, the conduct of beating and torturing the appellant on the latter appearing in obedience to the summons cannot establish any nexus between the official act of issuance of summons and the action of the respondent on the appearance of the appellant. Unless a relation ship is established between the provision of law ‘under’ which the respondent purports to act and the misdemeanor complained of, the provision of Sec.53 will not be attracted.