The preparation of a false Panchnama and report by a police officer is an act done under colour of duty imposed upon him by the Bombay Police Act.

Headnote:
POLICE ACT - S. 161(1) - LIMITATION - ACT DONE UNDER COLOUR OF DUTY - INTERPRETATION - OFFENCES UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE - WHETHER INCLUDED.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Head Constable, was accused of preparing a false Panchnama and report to save a person caught with Ganja from legal punishment. The prosecution was initiated more than six months after the alleged commission of the offence.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the preparation of a false Panchnama and report was an act done under colour of duty imposed upon the appellant by the Bombay Police Act. The Court further held that S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act is not limited to offences against the Act and has application to offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: Whether the preparation of a false Panchnama and report was an act done under colour of duty imposed upon the appellant by the Bombay Police Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the words "under colour of duty" in S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act to include acts done under the cloak of duty, even though not by virtue of the duty. The Court held that when a police officer prepares a false Panchnama or a false report, he is clearly using the existence of his legal duty as a cloak for his corrupt action.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, and ordered that the case against him be dismissed.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J.: The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellant s prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

2. In February 1954, the appellant was employed as a Head Constable at the Kalkeri outpost attached to the Hippassagi 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 packets of Ganja. These 15 packets of Ganja were seized and fur this seizure the appellant prepared a Panchnama in which however he incorrectly showed the seizure of 9 packets of Ganja only. On February 24, 1954, it is alleged the appellant had a new Panchnama prepared in which it was falsely recited that a person who was coming towards the village of Budhihal ran away on seeing the panchas and the Havaldar, after throwing away a bundle and this bundle was found to contain 9 packets of Ganja weighing one tola each. the date in the Panchnama was mentioned as February 23, 1954. A report to the same effect was also prepared. The prosecution case is that no such thing happened on February 24, 1954 or February 23, 1954 but that this Panchnama and the report were falsely prepared by the appellant with the dishonest intention of saving Nabi Sab Kembhavi who had actually been caught with Ganja from legal punishment.

3. on these allegations the appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, on a charge under S. 218 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty and contended that the Panchnama and the report which are challenged by the prosecution as a false Panchnama were correctly prepared by him on February 23, 1954 and mention the true state of affairs. It was also pleaded that R. 542 of the Bombay Police Manual barred his prosecution as prior permission of the District Superintendent of Police had not been taken. A further defence was raised that in any case as the prosecution was commenced long after six months had elapsed after the alleged commission of the offence it was barred by S. 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act.

4. The appellant was however convicted by the Trial Court under S. 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

5. Against that order, he appealed to the High Court of Mysore. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court that an Offence under S. 218 of the Indian Penal Code had been made out. The defence under R. 542 of the Bombay Police Manual was also rejected on, the ground that this Rule had no statutory force. As regards the plea of limitation under/S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 the High Court was of the opinion that on February 24, 1954 the appellant had no duty to perform in regard to the crime detected on the 23rd and hence it was not possible to hold that the preparation of a false Panchnama and a false report "were acts done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid" as found in S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

6. Against that decision the present appeal has been preferred by special leave granted by this Court and the only question raised in the appeal is as regards the correctness of the High Court s conclusion that the prosecution of the appellant was not barred under S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

(6a) Section 161 (l) is in these words: "161 (1). In any case of alleged Offence by the Revenue Commissioner, the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police Officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Revenue Commissioner, Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein it shall appear to the Court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document