1993 (9) TMI 358 - SC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses appeal as time-barred under Delhi Police Act, 1978. Police actions within scope of duty.

PROF. SUMER CHAND Versus UNION OF INDIA

PROF. SUMER CHAND Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1993 AIR 2579, 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 123, 1994 (1) SCC 64, 1993 (5) JT 189, 1993 (3) SCALE 706 Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 vs. Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period of limitation.2. Requirement of prior notice under Section 140(2) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.3. Acts done under 'colour of duty' or 'authority' under Section 140(1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 vs. Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period of limitation:The primary issue was whether the limitation period for filing a suit for malicious prosecution against a Delhi Police officer is governed by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, or by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellant argued that Article 74, which prescribes a longer limitation period for malicious prosecution suits, should prevail as it is a special provision. However, the court held that the Limitation Act is a general enactment, whereas the Delhi Police Act is a special enactment specifically governing police-related matters. Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, which prescribes a three-month limitation period, is a special provision and thus prevails over the general provisions of the Limitation Act. By virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation prescribed by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act would apply.2. Requirement of prior notice under Section 140(2) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978:The appellant failed to serve prior notice of the intended suit to the respondents, as required by Section 140(2) of the Delhi Police Act. The court emphasized that Section 140(2) mandates a minimum one-month notice before filing a suit, and the plaint must state that such notice has been served. The appellant neither served the notice nor made any averment about it in the plaint. Consequently, the suit was liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.3. Acts done under 'colour of duty' or 'authority' under Section 140(1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978:The appellant contended that the actions of the police officers were not done under 'colour of duty' or 'authority.' The court referred to previous judgments, including Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. State of Mysore, which clarified that acts done under the 'colour of duty' include those done under the cloak of duty, even if they are in dereliction of duty. The court held that the actions of the police officers in registering a report and filing a challan had a reasonable connection and nexus with their official duties. Thus, these acts were done under the 'colour of duty,' falling within the ambit of Section 140(1) of the Delhi Police Act. Since the suit was filed after the expiry of the three-month limitation period prescribed by Section 140(1), it was barred by limitation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 140(1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and also for failing to comply with the prior notice requirement under Section 140(2). The acts of the police officers were deemed to be done under the 'colour of duty,' thereby attracting the provisions of Section 140. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.