PUNJABRAO HIMMATRAO DESHMUKH Vs. BHAGIRATH SHRIKISAN BAJAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Mandpe, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Shri Gilda, learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) By this Second Appeal, a Police Officer in person and State of Maharashtra are challenging the judgment dated 11.2.1991 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Washim, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 245 of 1989 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent . plaintiff and directing Appellant No.1 . Police Sub-Inspector to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- as damages to him. Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1980 was filed by the respondent for recovery of damages of Rs.25,000/- on account of his wrongful detention and defamation. The trial Court framed various issues and while answering material issues in the affirmative, it found that Respondent . plaintiff possessed status as claimed by him, he was called in police station and he was abused by appellant No.1. It also found that he was not called upon to give security and therefore there was no question of his failure to furnish security. The respondent . plaintiff was not released malafide by appellant No.1 and was wrongfully detained and appellant No. 1 was liable for it. However, it held that respondent was not entitled to damages of Rs.25,000/- and suit was barred in view of provisions of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code and Section 161 of Bombay Police Act. In view of these findings, it dismissed the suit. The respondent then filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 245 of 1989 and the appellate Court found that the act done by present appellant No.1 was not in purported exercise or under the colour or excess of his duties. It, therefore, held that protection granted by Section 161 of Bombay Police Act was not available to him. It considered various cases and held that appellant No. 1 was liable to pay amount of Rs.6,000/- as damages to present respondent. It did not award any relief to respondent against State of Maharashtra. Second Appeal is filed jointly by said Police Sub-Inspector and State Government. It has been admitted on 31.10.1991 by mentioning that grounds No. 3 & 4 in appeal memo are substantial questions of law. Those grounds are as under :

(3.) Shri Mandpe, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants argues that language of Section 161 of Bombay Police Act is very wide and it covers all acts done even in colour of exercise of duty or in excess of such duty. He, therefore, contends that acts done in purported exercise of his duties by appellant No.1 are also covered and protected under Section 161 of Bombay Police Act. Admittedly, notice under Section 161 of the Act or Section 80 of CPC has not been given and hence suit could not have been decreed. He, therefore, stresses that both grounds need to be answered in favour of present appellants.