TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a suit for malicious prosecution against police officers is governed by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 or by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) whether the acts alleged against the police officers were done under colour of duty or authority so as to attract Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
Issue (i): whether a suit for malicious prosecution against police officers is governed by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 or by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The Limitation Act is a general enactment governing limitation for suits and proceedings, while the Delhi Police Act is a special enactment regulating suits and prosecutions against police officers in respect of acts done under colour of duty or authority. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act gives effect to a special law prescribing a different period of limitation, and the period provided by Section 140 therefore operates in place of the Schedule to the Limitation Act where the suit falls within its scope.
Conclusion: The suit was governed by Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 and not by Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Issue (ii): whether the acts alleged against the police officers were done under colour of duty or authority so as to attract Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.
Analysis: The governing test is whether there is a reasonable connection or nexus between the complained-of act and the duties or powers of the office. Acts performed as a cloak for official duty, even if wrongful or in excess of authority, may still be acts done under colour of duty. On the pleadings, the registration of the report by the police post in-charge and the filing of the challan by the station house officer were acts having a direct connection with official functions, and the suit therefore fell within the protective ambit of Section 140.
Conclusion: The alleged acts were done under colour of duty or authority and Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 applied.
Final Conclusion: The statutory bar applied to the suit, and the dismissal of the action against the respondents was legally justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a distinct limitation period for suits against police officers for acts done under colour of duty or authority, that special period governs, and acts having a reasonable nexus with official duties fall within the statutory protection even if alleged to be wrongful.
TaxTMI 
