LAWS(SC)-1962-11-34

VIRUPAXAPPA VEERAPPA KADAMPUR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

Decided On November 09, 1962
VIRUPAXAPPA VEERAPPA KADAMPUR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant's prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

(2.) In February 1954, the appellant was employed as a Head Constable at the Kalkeri outpost attached to the Hippassagi Police Station. On February 23, 1954, the appellant, went to Budhihal Road on receipt of information about the smuggling of Ganja from the then Hyderabad State to Kalkeri and at about 2 or 3 p. m. actually caught one Nabi Sab Kembhavi with a bundle containing 15 packets of Ganja. These 15 packets of Ganja were seized and fur this seizure the appellant prepared a Panchnama in which however he incorrectly showed the seizure of 9 packets of Ganja only. On February 24, 1954, it is alleged the appellant had a new Panchnama prepared in which it was falsely recited that a person who was coming towards the village of Budhihal ran away on seeing the panchas and the Havaldar, after throwing away a bundle and this bundle was found to contain 9 packets of Ganja weighing one tola each. the date in the Panchnama was mentioned as February 23, 1954. A report to the same effect was also prepared. The prosecution case is that no such thing happened on February 24, 1954 or February 23, 1954 but that this Panchnama and the report were falsely prepared by the appellant with the dishonest intention of saving Nabi Sab Kembhavi who had actually been caught with Ganja from legal punishment.

(3.) on these allegations the appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, on a charge under S. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and contended that the Panchnama and the report which are challenged by the prosecution as a false Panchnama were correctly prepared by him on February 23, 1954 and mention the true state of affairs. It was also pleaded that R. 542 of the Bombay Police Manual barred his prosecution as prior permission of the District Superintendent of Police had not been taken. A further defence was raised that in any case as the prosecution was commenced long after six months had elapsed after the alleged commission of the offence it was barred by S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act.