LexPAUL GEORGE versus STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 1208 A PAUL GEORGE V. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2008) B MARCH 14, 2008 [S.8. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Delhi Police Act, 1978 - s.140 - Protection under - If available - Appellant, Head Constable, entrusted with the task c of delivering an urgent wireless message to Police Head l- Quarters - He Jeff the Police Station driving a Police Mini Truck (official vehicle) - On way; he suddenly went over the road divider separating the lanes and hit an oncoming scooter in the opposite lane, which resulted in death of one person and D injuries to another - Conviction of Appellant under ss. 279 and 304A, /PC - Challenge to - Plea that Appellant had been acting under the "colour of duty" and prosecution against him " was completely barred under s. 140 as it was not initiated within three months from date of incident - Tenability of - Held: Not E tenable - Though duty entrusted to appellant was in his capacity as a police officer, his act of jumping the road divider and coming face on to the incoming traffic which caused the accident was not a matter within "colour of duty" - Therefore, case of Appellant not covered by s. 140 and initiation of proceedings and prosecution beyond three months from date F of accident not beyond limitation - However, in facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, " ' J Appellant directed to be released on probation - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 279 and 304A - Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - s.4. G Appellant, Head Constable, was entrusted with the task of delivering an urgent wireless message to the Police Head Quarters. He left the Police Station driving a Police Mini Truck (official vehicle). On way, he suddenly went over H 1208 • ( PAUL GEORGE v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 1209 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.] the road divider separating the lanes and hit an oncoming A scooter in the opposite lane, which resulted in the death of one person and injuries to another. Appellant was convicted by the Courts be_low under s.279 and 304A, IPC. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether Appellant had been acting 8 under the "colour _of duty" and prosecution against him was completely barred under s.140 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 as it was not initiated within three months from the date of the incident. Disposing of the appeal, the Court c HELD:1.1. 5.140(1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 provides that any action against a wrongful act by a police officer done under the 'colour of duty' has to be initiated within three months from the date of the act complained D off and if this time limit is exceeded, it would bar the suit or prosecution. [Para 7] [1213-E, Fl 1.2. What has to be seen on. the facts of the case is the nature of the act and as to whether it fell within the protection available to the appellant. The duty entrusted E to the appellant to deliver the message to the Police Head Quarters was in his capacity as a police officer and to that extent and prima facie he would be protected by Section 140 of the Act. However, by jumping the road divider and coming- face on to the incoming traffic was the factor F which had caused the accident and was clearly not a matter within the "colour of duty". Therefore, the case of the appellant would not be covered by s.140 and that the initiation of proceedings and the prosecution beyond three months from the date of accident was not beyond G limitation. [Para 8] [1215-G, H; 1216-A, 8, C, D] 1.3. This litigation has been going on for the last 20 years and has been fought tenaciously through various courts. Also the appellant, who has had a good career throughout but for this one aberration, has· since been H 1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. A dismissed from service on account of his conviction. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, the ends of justice would be met if the appellant is directed to be released on probation under s.4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. B [Para 9] [1216-F, G] Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das (2006) 3 SCALE 141 and Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur v. State of Mysore AIR -L (1963) SC 849 - referred to. c CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.5.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Revision (P) No. 555 of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.