N VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals came before Basi Reddi, J., for final disposal and a preliminary point was taken before the learned Judge that the prosecution of the appellants was barred by reason of the provisions of Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act of 1859 (hereinafter referred as the Act). Although this point was not raised in the lower Court, as it was a question of law going to the root of the jurisdiction of the Court, the learned Judge permitted the counsel to argue.After bearing the arguments, the learned Judge was of the opinion that the view taken in a judgment of the Madras High Court in Nichodemus v. State, 1954 Mad WN (Cri) 185 : ((S) AIR 1955 Mad 561), by Chandra Reddy, J. as a Judge of the Madras High Court and in Bapaniah v. State, 1954 Mad WN (Cri) 316, a subseyuent decision of the same learned Judge as a judge of the Andhra High Court were not in consonance with the view taken by the Madras High Court in an earlier decision in Lakshmiah Swami v. Mohd. Galah Hussain, AIR 1937 Mad 382. Inasmuch as the construction placed by Chandra Reddy, J., in the two cases referred to was not the same as that placed by the Madras decision (the last mentioned decision) he referred the case with the following question for determination by a Bench:-

(2.) In the circumstances of this case, is the prosecution of the appellants barred by limitation by reason of the provisions of Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act."2. These two questions have now come up before us for consideration. The Madras District Police Act has been enacted for the better regulation of the police within the territories in the Presidency of Madras. It deals with, the powers, duties and responsibilities of the police officers. It also deals with, the penalties that might be imposed on a police officer (or unlawful acts.The police officers are liable to be prosecuted for offences committed by them and where such offences are committed while in the actual discharge of their duties the law enjoins that such prosecution or complaints shall be filed as early as possible. Section 53 prescribes a period of three months for the launching of prosecutions and the giving of at least one month notice of such action to the police officer find other superior officer mentioned in the section. Section 53 in so far as it is relevant reads as follows:-

(3.) Obviously this section does not give any protection to the police officer allowing him to perpetrate crimes or Commit offences. The Police officer is liable to be punished and prosecuted like any other individual if he is responsible for an act which would constitute an offence under the Penal Code or under any other law. The protection afforded to the Officer is limited to this extent that where in the discharge of his duties the police officer does anything which would amount to an offence any action intended to be taken against him for such an offence would have to be commenced within three months.The policy of the Act and the object of this provision appears to be to ensure that police officers are not unnecessarily harassed by complaints and prosecutions being filed long after the alleged commission of the offence when it might not be possible to know under what circumstances the alleged act was done. The idea behind is that where the police officer in the course of discharge of his duties happens to do an act, winch is an offence, a prosecution should be launched against him as early as possible so that the police officer might be in a position to explain his act as otherwise it might be difficult to do so at a distance of time.If the purpose of Section 53 of the Act was not so permit the prosecution of police officers committing offences while in the discharge of their duties then the section would be otiose. The only condition necessary for such prosecution is that the complaint, should be filed within three months,