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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the prosecution for an offence under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was barred by the six-month limitation in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 on the ground that the alleged false panchnama and report were acts done under colour of duty.
Analysis: The provision bars prosecution where the alleged offence or wrong is committed by a police officer by an act done under colour of, or in excess of, duty or authority. The preparation of a correct panchnama and report after seizure was part of the police officer's duty under the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the alleged preparation of false documents was treated as a corrupt misuse of that duty rather than conduct outside its colour. The words "under colour of duty" were construed to include acts done under the cloak of official duty even when they were a deliberate breach of that duty. The limitation provision was also held to apply to offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and not merely to offences under the Police Act.
Conclusion: The prosecution was barred by Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and should have been dismissed; the conviction and sentence could not stand.
Ratio Decidendi: An act done by a police officer in misuse or abuse of an official duty may still be an act done under colour of that duty, and the special limitation bar applies to such offences even if they are punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.