STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus NARHARRAO

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 14-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
NARHARRAO 
March 14, 1966 
(K. SUBBA RAo, V. RAMASWAMI AND J. M. SllELAT, JJ.j 
Bombay PoUce Act (22 of 1951), s. 161(1)-"Undtr colour or In 
excas of any suc/J duty or authority .. , meaning of. 
'Ibo respondent, a head constable, was charged under s. 161, Indian 
Peul Code, and s. 5(1) (b) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, for accepting a bribe for weakening a prosccutioo case. 
He was 
convicted by the u:a1 coun, but the High Court allowed the appeal on 
the ground that under s. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act 1951, the 
prosecution was barred having been launched more than six months after 
the date of the alleged offence. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HE!LD : The High Court was m error, because, the benefit of the 
aix months period of limitation i• available only when the 
allC!(ed 
act 
of the officer was one done under colour t>f the duty imposed or tho 
authority conferred on him by any provision of law, or in excess of any 
auch duty or authority. 
Unleas there is a reasonable connection between 
the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it cannot 
be said that tho act was done by the accused omcer under the colour of 
bis office. (882 E; 883 CJ 
The State o; Andhra Prades/1 v. N. Venuropal ll1ld On., [1964) 3 
S.C.R. 742. followed. 
Vlrupaxappa Veerqpa Kadampur ''· Stale of Mytore, (1963) Supp. 2 
S.C.ll. 6, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELi.A TP. JURJSDICllON : Criminal Appeal No. 
214 of 1964. 
A 
c 
D 
E 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datecl 
I' 
the November 11, 1963 of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) 
at Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1963. 
R. M. Hazamai•is, R. H. Dliebar and B. R. G. K. A char, for the 
appellant. 
M. S. K. Sastri, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from 
the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur, Bench dated 
November II, 1963 in Criminal Appeal no. 153of1963. 
.. 
The respondent Narharrao, a police Head Constable was 
attached to the Murtizapur Police Station in September, 1962. 
He was investigating offences under ss. 110, 102 and 117 of the 
880 
G 
H 
. -· 
• 
• 
.. 
-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
MAHARASHTRA v. NARHARRAO (Ramaswami, /.) 
ss1; 
Bombay Police Act against two persons, viz., Onkar and Harihar. 
It is alleged that Onkar and Harihar approached Narharrao for 
showing them some favour. The latter demanded Rs. 25 as a 
bribe for weakening the prosecution case which was to be launched 
against Onkar and Harihar. The respondent accepted Rs. 5 on 
or about October 14, 1962 and Rs. 10 on or about October 19, 1962 
as illegal gratification. The respondent was tried in the Court of 
the Special Judge, Akola for accepting bribe under s. 161, Indian 
Penal Code or alternatively for committing criminal misconduct 
in the discharge of his duties which is punishable under s. 5(2) read 
with s. 5(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
By this 
judgment dated June 25, 
1963, the Special Judge held the respon-
dent guilty of both the offences and sentenced him to rigorous 
imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200 .or in 
default to a rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. 
The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court, being Criminal 
Appeal no. 153 of 1963. The High Court allowed the appeal on 
the ground that s.161(1) of the Bombay Police Act was a bar to the 
prosecution of the respondent. The High Court did not discuss in 
detail the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence to sup-
port the conviction of the respondent on merits but acquitted him 
on the technical ground that no prosecution could be launched more 
than six months after the date of the alleged offence, as required 
under s.161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. 
The question of law presented for determination in this appea 
is whether the alleged act of offence was committed by the respon-
dent "under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as 
aforesaid" within the meaning of s. 161(1) of the Bombay Police. 
Act (Bombay Act 22 of 1951). 
Section 159 of this Act provides as follows : 
F 
"159. No Revenue Commissioner, Magistrate or 
Police 
Officer shall be liable to any penalty or to 
payment of damages on account of an act done in good faith, 
in pursuance or intended pursuance of any duty imposed or 
any authority conferred on him by 
any provision of 
this Act or any other law for the time
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.