https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308188 The Supreme Court held that the appellant's prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. As the prosecution was initiated more than six months after the alleged act of preparing a false Panchnama and report, it was dismissed. The Court rejected the state's argument that the limitation provision only applied to offences under the Bombay Police Act, emphasizing that the term "offence" encompassed any punishable act. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the case was dismissed. en-us Fri, 09 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jun 2023 16:50:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308188 The Supreme Court held that the appellant's prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. As the prosecution was initiated more than six months after the alleged act of preparing a false Panchnama and report, it was dismissed. The Court rejected the state's argument that the limitation provision only applied to offences under the Bombay Police Act, emphasizing that the term "offence" encompassed any punishable act. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were set aside, and the case was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Nov 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308188