LexS.P. VAITHIANATHAN versus K. SHANMUGANATHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.P. VAITHIANATHAN A v. K. SHA."IMUGANATHAN MARCH 1, 1994 [AM. AHMADI AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) B Criminal Law-Police Officer-Prosecution of-Allegations of beating and torturing complainl-l'rosecution resisted as bamd by s.53 of Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859-Held, in order to avail benefit of s.53 accused must show that he acted under the Act or any other law-Beating and torturing C complainant cannot be said to be an action in discharge of any duty or function under Act or any other law. Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859: Section 53-f'olice Of- ficel'-l'rosecution of-Limitatio~eld, before a prosecution is terminated as baned by s.53, accused must show that act complained of was done under D ~ provisions of the Act or any other law. The appellant, being in-charge of an arrack shop, made a complaint to the superior officers of the Police Department that the respondent, who was the Additional Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enfrorce- E ment, of the area, was conniving with the persons involved in illicit distil- lation activities. The respondent on coming to know of this, is alleged to have summoned the appellant to his office, beat.him np and took him to thr Prohibition and Excise Wing where he was further tortured. When awellant's efforts to bring the incident to the notice of the respondent's - superiors went in vain, he filed a criminal complaint in the court against F the respondent alleging comission of offences under ss.307, 323, 341, 342, 363, 364 and 506(2) I.P.C. The Court issued process which the respondent challenged in an application under s.482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The High Court quashed the order by which the process had been G issued holding that the proceedings were barred by s.53 or the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859. The appellant filed the appeal by special leave. ' Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court comitted an error in quashing the H 257 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 2 S.C.R. A complaint on the ground that it was barred by s. 53 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act, 1859. (264-B] 1.2. Before a prosecution is terminated as barred by s.53 ofihe Act, the accused must show that on the allegations made in the complaint it ex-facie appears that the act complained of was done under the provsions B of the Act or under the provisions of any other law for the time being in - force whereunder powers are conferred on the police. (262-B) 1.3. In order to avail of the benefit of s.53, the accused must show that he acted 'under' the Act or· any other law. Unless a relationship is C established between the pro>ision of law 'under' which the accused pur- forts to act and the misdemeanour complained of, the provision of s.53 will not be attracted. (262-D, Fl 1.4. In the instant case, the allegation .n the complaint is that while the appellant was called by service of a summons presumably to inquire D into allegations of illicit distillation, the respondent had merely used It as an excuse to secure his presence but in fact his real intention was to beat him up to prevent him from complaining a1:ainst those who were paying him 'mamool' (illegal gratification) money. 'Thus according to the appel- lant, the respondent bore a grudge against ban and, therefore, he misused E his power, Issued a summons, secured his pn!Sence and then tortured him. He has charged him for the commission of ol fences under ss.341, 342, 362, 364, 506 (II Part) and 307 IPC. These do no: attract the provision of s.53 of the Act. (262-G-H, 263-A] 1.5. Merely because the appellant wa,: called through a summons F Issued under law, the conduct of beating and <orturing the app~llant on the latter appearing in obedience to the summons cannot establish any nexus between the official act of issuance of summons and the action of the respondent on the appearance of the appellant. It was no part of the duty under the Act, Code or any other law for the time being in force conferring G power on the police to beat and torture th" appellant. By no stretch of reasoning can it be said that the respondent's action torturing the appellant was in discharge of any duty or function under the Act or under any other law. Nor can it be said that respondent's action was incidental to or in furtherance of bis duties and functions under any law. (262-C-F] H The State of Andhn1 Pradesh v. N. Venugopal & Ors., (1964] 3 SCR ! ( \ , ... '\
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.