LexP.P. UNIKRISHNAN AND ANR. versus PUTTIYOTTIL ALIKUTTY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A P.P. UNIKRISHNAN AND ANR. v. PUTTIYOTTIL ALIKUTTY AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Kera/a Police Act, 1960 : Section 64(3)-Scope of-Police Officer-Offences Committed by-Bar C against taking cognizance-Held, not confined to offences specified in the Act-Bar encompasses offences under other enactments-Period of limitation for taking cognizance-Held, cannot be extended under Section.473 Cr.P.C. Police Officer-Illegally confining and assaulting a person in Police D Station-Benefit of Section 64(3) held not available to the Police Officer. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 197(1)-Section 64 of Kera/a Police Act, 1960-Dijference between. E Sectii:>n 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act, provides no court shall take cognizance of any suit or complaint, in respect of any offence or wrong alleged to be committed or done by a Magistrate, ~olice Officer or other person on account of any act done in pursuance of any duty imposed or authority conferred on him by this Act or any other law for the time being in force or F any rule, order or direction lawfully made or given thereunder unless the suit or complaint is filed within six months of the date on which the offence or wrong is alleged to have been committed or done. The appellants, a Sub- Inspector of Police and a constable, illegally confined and assaulted the respondent, a shop keeper, in the Perambra Police Station. The respondent lodged a complaint under Section 325, 342, 330 and 506 (1) of the Indian G Penal Code, 1860. The preliminary objection taken by the appellants that the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of offences in view of the bar contained in Section 64(3) was overruled by the trial court. The petition filed by the appellants for quashing the criminal proceedings was dismissed by the High Court holding that (i) the offences complained of have not been H committed in the discharge of official duties of petitioners; (ii) u/s. 473 of the 142 • . .. • - P.P. UNIKRISHNAN v. PUTTIYOTTIL ALIKUTTY 143 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Court has jurisdiction to condone the delay A where there are sufficient reasons to do so; and (iii) the complaint filed against the police officials cannot be thrown out under Section 64(3) of the Police Act merely because it was filed after the lapse of six months from the date of alleged offence. Against the decision of the High Court appeal was preferred before this B Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The benefit envisaged in Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police C Act cannot be afforded to the appellants. [152-B] 2. The view adopted by the High Court that Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can appropriately be invoked by the complainant for circumventing the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act cannot be upheld. On reading Section 473 it becomes crystally clear that D it is intended to be applied only with reference to the period fixed in Section 468 of the Code. The extension of period contemplated in Section 473 of the Code is only by way of an exception to the period fixed as per the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code. Section 473 of the Code therefore cannot operate in respect of any period of limitation prescribed under any other enactment. (148-E-D] E 3. The words "any offence" mentioned in Section 64(3) of the kerala Police Act indicate that the provision is not restricted to the offences specified in the Kerala Police Act. There is nothing in Section 64(3) which would warrant a construction that the ban therein is intended only with reference to the offences 11.1entioned in that Act. [1549-D-E] F 4. The context envisaged in Section 197(1) of the Code or the purpose of providing a filter therein is demonstrably different from the object of Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act. Section 197(1) of the Code does not impose any absolute ban against taking cognizance of the offence, but it only says that the G sanction contemplated therein is a condition precedent for taking such cognizance. It obviously is for preventing public servants from being subjected to frivolous prosecutions for discharging their official duties. On the other hand, Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act incorporates an absolute ban against taking cognizance of the offences of the type mentioned therein on the expiry of the period specified thereii:i. The words used in Section 197(1) of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.