VIRUPAXAPPA VEERAPPA KADAMPUR versus THE STATE OF MYSORE

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 09-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Ana,.ga Bijo7 
Miltro 
v. 
Tai. Tron & Stul 
C.., Lid. 
DasGupto, I. 
1962 
6 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. 
find out such user, it becomes clear that while a part 
of the land was used for growing some guava trees 
and some flowers, a pacca room was also erected on a 
portion of the land. On a cousideration of all these 
things we find ourselves in agreement with the High 
Court that the purpose of the lease was not agricul-
tural or horticultural. 
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that 
the High Court was right in decreeing the plaintiff's 
suit. 
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 
Appe,al dismissed. 
VIRUPAXAPPA VEERAPPA KADAMPUR 
ti. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE 
(S. J. IMAM, K. C. DAs GuPl'A and 
RA.GHUBAR I)AYA.L, lJ.) 
Oriminal Law-Police O.fliur preparing /aloe report-" Act 
clone under colour of duty'', Meaning of-Statute provi<ling time 
limit for pro&ecution-Validity of conviction-Indian Penal Gode 
1860 (Act 45 of 1860), 8. 218-Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bam. 
22 of 1951), 88. 64, 161(1). 
The appellant, a Head Constable, was charged with an 
offence under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution 
case was that on February 23, 1954, on receipt of information 
that some persons were attempting to smuggle Ganja, the 
appellant caught N with a bundle containing 15 packets of 
Ganja and seized them, that he thep prepared a Panchnama 
in which he incorrectly showed the seizure of 9 packets of Ganja 
only, and that on the next day he, however, prepared a new 
report in which it was falsely recited that the person with the 
bundle ran away on seeing the police after throwing away the 
bundle containing 9 packets of Ganja only. The allegation 
against the appellant was that he prepared a false report with 
1
... 
'·' 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
7 
the dishonest intention of saving N who had actually been 
caught with Ganja from legal punishment. The Trial Court 
accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant. 
The appellant r.hallenged the legality of the conviction on the 
ground, inter alia, that the alleged offence had been committed 
"by an act done under colour of duty" within the meaning of 
s. 161 (I) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and that, therefore, 
the prosecution was barred under that section inasmuch as it 
was instituted admittedly more than six months after the date 
of the act complained of. 
Held, that under s. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 
1951, the words "under colour of duty" have been used to 
include acts done under the cloak of duty, even though not by 
virtue of the duty ; that when the appellant prepared a false 
report he was using the existence of his legal duty as a. cloak for 
his corrupt action ·and that, therefore, the act thus done in 
dereliction of his duty must be held to have been done "under 
colour of the !luty." 
Madhav Ganpal Pra&ad v. Maihidlchan, (1917) I.L.R. 41 
Born. 737 and Narayan Bari v, YeBhwanl Raoji, A.I.R. 1928 
Born. 352, approved. 
Observations in Parbat Gopal Walekar v. Dinkar. 8. 
Bhlnde, ( 1960) 63 Bom. L.R. 189, that "if the alleged act is 
found to have been done in gross violation of the duty, then it 
ceased to be an i.ct done under colour of duty", disapproved. 
Held, further, tha.t the word "offences" ins. 161(1) of the 
Act refers to offences under any law, and is not restricted to 
offences under the Act only. 
CRnnJiA.L APPELLATE j URISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No.144 of 1961. 
App~al by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated March 8, 1961, of the Mysore High 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 362of1959. 
" 
Anil Kumar G1J.pta and R. K. Garg, for the 
appellant. 
. 
' 
R. Gopa'lakrishnan andP. D. Menon, for the res· 
pondent . 
1962 
1962 
Virupaxa/>fta 
Vn1oppa Ka'dampur 
•• 
TM .~-tote of M,sor1 
D11s Gupta, I 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
1962. November 9. The Judgment of the Court 
was ddiwred by 
DAS GUP'l'A, .J.-Thc only question for deci-
sion in this appeal is whether the appellant's prosecu-
tion was barred by the special rule of limitation in 
s. Hil( 1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 
In February 1954, the appellant was employed 
as a Head Constable at the Kalkeri Outpost attached 
to the Hippussagi Police Station. On February 23, 
1954, the appellant went to Budhihal Road on receipt 
of information about the smuggling of Ganja from 
the then Hyderabad State to Kalkeri and at about 2 
or 3 p.m. actually caught one Nabi Sab Kembhavi 
with a bundle containing 15 pack
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.