PREM CHAND GOEL Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.C.2137/1998 is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.1997 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.(R) No.5/1996 dated 6.3.1996, whereby the learned Judge has while exercising his power in revision dismissed the petition of the petitioner against the order dated 16.9.1995 of the Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint as being hit by provisions of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. The learned Judge has held that the acts complained of were done by the officers under the colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such authority and, therefore, the bar under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, to instituting a complaint within 3 months would come into play.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that a bar under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act cannot operate in a case where the complaint alleges torture and beating in custody, for none of these acts are acts which are done either under the colour of duty or excess of duty, because no duty is cast on a police man to violate the body of the detenu while in custody. Learned counsel draws my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.P.Vaithianathan Vs. K.Shanmuganathan, 1994, CCR, Vol II, 413, where the Supreme Court in paragraph 4 has held as follows:

(3.) Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that this court would not ordinarily interfere in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the petitioner had already taken recourse to filing a revision petition. The inherent power of the High Court cannot be used to circumvent the provisions of law. He contends that the very fact that the petitioners had been taken into custody pursuant to an F.I.R. and detained would itself show that the police acted in the discharge of the lawful duty and even if taken at the highest, that the petitioner was beaten up, the act was certainly done in the colour of duty even though it may be in excess of powers conferred on them.