S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859 applies only to acts done or intended to be done under the provisions of the Act or other laws conferring powers on the police.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Prosecution of police officers - Limitation - Madras District Police Act (4 of 1859), S. 53 - Applicability - Acts done or intended to be done under the provisions of the Act or other laws conferring powers on the police - Meaning and scope - Investigation of crime against police officer - Procedure prescribed by Madras Police Standing Orders - Whether mandatory - Non-compliance - Effect.
Fact of the Case:

Three police officers were convicted of various offenses, including causing grievous hurt to a person in custody. They appealed to the High Court, which acquitted them on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation under S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act did not apply to the case because the acts complained of were not done or intended to be done under any provision of the Act or other laws conferring powers on the police. The Court also held that the investigation of the crime against the police officers was not illegal, even though it was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Madras Police Standing Orders, because the Standing Orders were merely directory and not mandatory.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution of the police officers was barred by limitation under S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859? 2. Whether the investigation of the crime against the police officers was illegal because it was not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Madras Police Standing Orders?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act applies only to acts done or intended to be done under the provisions of the Act or other laws conferring powers on the police. The acts complained of in the present case were not done or intended to be done under any such provision, and therefore S. 53 did not apply. 2. The Madras Police Standing Orders are merely directory and not mandatory. Non-compliance with the provisions of the Standing Orders therefore does not make the investigation of a case illegal.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court acquitting the respondents altogether in respect of injuries caused to Arige Ramanna, and convicted them all of an offence under S. 330 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court also sentenced each of the respondents to five years' rigorous imprisonment.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J.: The three respondents, Venugopal, Rangaswamy and Subbaiah were tried along with one Mittala Kamal Sab by the Session Judge, Anantapur Division, on a number of charges. Kamal Sab was acquitted of all the charges against him, but these three respondents were convicted of several offences. All three of them were convicted under Ss. 348, 331, and 201 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Venugopal was further convicted under S. 343 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under S. 348 the respondents were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years; for the offence under S. 331 of the Indian Penal Code each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years; for the offence under S. 201 read with S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years each. Venugopal was sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment under S. 343 of the Indian Penal Code. All of them were acquitted of the charge under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences imposed on them were directed to run concurrently. These orders of conviction and sentence were set aside by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal and the three respondents have been acquitted of all the charges. Against that decision the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court.

2. Of the three respondents, Venugopal was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vempalli police Station, in Cuddapah District from July 20, 1956 to February 22, 1957; Rangaswamy was a Head Constable attached to the same police station from May 4, 1955 to February 20, 1957; Subbaiah was a Police Constable at that police station from April 10, 1955 to February 20, 1957. On July 21, 1952 Mittala Kamal Sab, a resident of Vempalli town lodged at the Vempalli police station an information of housebreaking and theft in his house. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted by the police against one Patra Obanna and three other persons. Those three were arrested and tried and convicted on October 31, 1952; but Patra Obanna remained absconding and the case against him remained pending in the Magistrate s Court. After sometime the Magistrate wrote to the District Superintendent of Police of Anantpur, requesting him either to withdraw the case or to try and arrest Patra Obanna.

3. Thereafter, Venugopal, who was then the Vempalli Sub-Inspector of Police, took action in this matter and his attempt to arrest Patra Obanna met with success. Patra Obanna was actually arrested on January 6, 1957. On the same date on being informed by him that he had given the gold gajjalu which formed part of the stolen property to a person in Kadiri Taluk, Venugopal proceeded to Kadiri police station. On the night of January 6, Venugopal, accompanied by Constables of the Kadiri police station and Rangaswamy and Subbiah, who had come with him to Kadiri went to Dasaravandlapalli in Gandlapenta police station and there on the identification of Patra Obanna as the person to whom he had given the gold gajjalu took one Arige Ramanna into custody. The police party then returned with Arige Ramanna to Kadiri police station. Less than three days later Arige Ramanna was found lying dead not far from the house of one Sugali Baginigadu, in Udamulagutta Thanda, in Kadiri village. There were a number of injuries on the body. The prosecution case is that these injuries had been caused by the three respondents acting in concert for the purpose of extorting from him information which might lead to the detection of an offence and restoration of stolen property. It is also the prosecution case that for this purpose these three respondents wrongfully confined Arige Ramanna in a room at the Kadiri police station and it was there when he was thus confined that the injuries were caused. The prosecution case further is that when after infliction of the injuries Arige Ramanna appeared to be in a bad state these

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1963 Supreme(SC) 174

S. 53 of the Madras District Police Act, 1859 applies only to acts done or intended to be done under the provisions of the Act or other laws conferring powers on the police.

Cases Referred (3)