C P SINGH Vs. K HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question is whether the respondent's complaint against the petitioner is barred by section 53 of the Madras District Police Act. THE District Magistrate in making the reference has relied on the decisions of my leurned brother Chandra Reddy J. in T. G. Nichodemus v. State and V. Bapaniah and others v. State in which the section was held to apply to all actions and prosecutions against a Police Officer for anything done in the discharge of his duties or the purported discharge of his duties. But the benefit of one section is subject to the qualification that the Police Officer did not act maliciously, as held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Venkatasubbarao, and Cornish, JJ., in Lakshmanaswaami v. Evssain Saheb. THE respondent has unequivocally alleged in his complaint that the petitioner-Sub-Inspector maliciously distorted the allegations made in the complaint of one Venkataramana and confined him in the Station lock-up, thereby committing offences under Section 218 and 220, Indian Penal Code. No doubt the onus of proving malice lies upon the respondent and it is only upon such proof that Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act will not avail the petitioner. But it is premature to say before taking any evidence that the petitioner did not act maliciously and therefore is entitled to the benefit of Section 53. THE learned District Magistrate in making the reference has ignored the effect of Lakshmanswami v Bussain Saheb. THE view taken by the Sub Magistrate that the preliminary objection under Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act could be properly considered only after the prosecution evidence is recorded is tight. THEre are no grounds to interfere with the order made by the Sub Magistrate on 31-10-1955- THE reference is answered accordingly. Orders accordingly.