Revisional jurisdiction and police-prosecution limitation: discharge refusal was revisable, and the complaint was time-barred under the Bombay Police Act.

An order refusing discharge is not treated as merely interlocutory where, if the revisional objection succeeds, the prosecution would end; on that reasoning, revision was maintainable. The document further states that a complaint against police officers for acts done under colour of duty or in excess of authority was barred by the limitation period under Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act because it was filed beyond the prescribed time and no statutory exception applied. The appeal is described as succeeding, with the High Court's order set aside and the Sessions Court's dismissal of the complaint restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order of the Magistrate refusing discharge was an interlocutory order so as to bar revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the complaint against the police officers was barred by Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

Issue (i): Whether the order of the Magistrate refusing discharge was an interlocutory order so as to bar revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Analysis: An order is not merely interlocutory if acceptance of the objection would terminate the criminal proceedings. The order refusing discharge kept the prosecution alive, but the objections raised in revision, if upheld, would have ended the entire prosecution. On that test, the revisional court was competent to examine the order.

Conclusion: The revision before the Sessions Court was maintainable and the High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint against the police officers was barred by Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act

Analysis: Section 161(1) prohibits prosecution of a police officer for acts done under colour of duty or in excess of authority if instituted beyond one year from the date of the act complained of, unless the statutory exception for prosecution with prior State Government sanction within two years applies. The alleged offences, judged from the complaint, were connected with acts done under colour of office and the complaint was filed long after the prescribed period. The bar under the provision therefore operated.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation under Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Sessions Court's dismissal of the complaint was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is revisable if upholding the objection would bring the prosecution to an end, and a prosecution of a police officer for acts done under colour of duty is barred when instituted beyond the statutory period prescribed by Section 161(1).

---