https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199210 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. en-us Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:21:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199210 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199210