LAWS(MAD)-1993-2-72

A.G. PANNEERSELVAM Vs. M. JAYARAMAN

Decided On February 22, 1993
A.G. Panneerselvam Appellant
V/S
M. JAYARAMAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur, made in C.C. No. 31 of 1987, dated 28.12.1987, acquitting the Respondent herein, who is a Police Officer during the relevant point of time for an alleged offence under Section 500, I.P.C., holding that the complaint alleged by the revision Petitioner against the Respondent for the abovesaid offence was clearly hit by the law of limitation provided under Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case, as culled out from the impugned order and the case records are briefly as follows: A complaint under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the revision Petitioner before the learned trial Magistrate against the Respondent, who is a Police Officer, for the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. alleging that on a prior occasion, the Respondent herein has initiated a false complaint and prosecution against the Petitioner herein for an offence under Section 75 of the City Police Act, which was taken on file in S.T.C. No. 150 of 1986 before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Vaniyambadi, that after full trial, the accused therein was found not guilty and was acquitted, and that even after the acquittal, the Respondent herein has opened a history sheet against revision Petitioner, thereby acting quite against his interest and maligning his fame and popularity.

(3.) THE learned trial Magistrate, upon perusing the question of law referred to in the context of the allegations and objections made, has found that to the facts of the present case, S. 53 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act is clearly made applicable since the complaint has been made after 5 1/2 months from the date of acquittal, viz. 30.6.1986 and that the present complaint filed against the Police Officer -Respondent for the alleged offence under Section 500, I.P.C. is clearly time barred. Therefore, the learned Magistrate rejected the complaint and acquitted the accused, and against which the present revision is sought for.