A RAMACHANDER RAO Vs. M KRISHNIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An enquiry against the petitioners 1, 2 and 3, who are Sub-Inspectors of Police, Police Head Constable, and Police Constable, respectively, of Wanaparthy police station, was being held in P.R.C. No. 1 of 1970 for offences under sections 218, 220 and 342 read with section 108, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the offence is alleged to have been committed on 17th July, 1969 at 6-00 A. M. The complaint was filed on 3rd February, 1970. An objection was raised in the said P. R. C. Proceedings that section 31 of the Hyderabad District Police Act is a bar to the filing of a complaint after 3 months of the alleged commission of the offence. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy by his order dated 4th August, 1970, rejected the contention having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maulud Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Subba Rao, J.). The accused carried the matter in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar who by his order dated 23rd September, 1970 in Cr.R.P. No. 13 of 1970 dismissed the revision petition.

(3.) In this revision petition, Mr. B. Madhava Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that both the Courts below erred in applying the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venugopal (Das Gupta, J),which was a decision based upon the interpretation of section 53 of the Madras Police Act to the present case in which an objection is raised having regard to section 31 of the Hyderabad District Police Act (hereinafter referred to as the Hyderabad Act) read with sections 16 and 19 of the District Police Act and 151, Criminal Procedure Code.