1. Heard learned Counsel Shri Rahul Dhande for the applicant, learned Counsel Shri A.S. Mardikar for non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.R. Rode for non-applicant No.3.

2. Non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 were facing trial before the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304, 324, 325, 364, 365 read with Section 109 and Sections 448, 294 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 were working as Police Constables attached to Akot Police Station, District Akola at the time of the alleged incident. They had allegedly committed murder of deceased Bhagwan Tondle. It is alleged that deceased Bhagwan Tondle was in police custody on 26-10-1989 and that non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 had assaulted the deceased. He sustained severe injuries at the hands of non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 and had succumbed to the injuries. It appears from the record and proceedings that there was a private complaint as well as a chargesheet and both the cases were amalgamated and the case had been committed to the Court of Session.

3. The application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made for discharge on the ground that the alleged incident had occurred in the month of October 1989, complaint case was filed on 21-2-1994 and chargesheet was filed on 4-5-1993. In brief, it can be stated here that the protection was sought by non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 of the provisions of Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act. Before I proceed further, it will be convenient to reproduce the said section here, which runs as under:-

“161. Suits or prosecution in respect of acts done under colour of duty as aforesaid not to be entertained, or to be dismissed if not instituted (within the prescribed period)

(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 character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained, or shall be dismissed, if instituted, more than six months after the date of the act complained of:

(Provided that, any such prosecution against a Police Officer may be entertained by the Court, if instituted with the previous sanction of the State Government within two years from the date of the offence.)

4. It is admitted position that the complaint case and chargesheet were filed in the court of law after expiry of six months period stated in Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act. The protection was also sought under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as it was contended before the learned trial Judge that a sanction of the Government under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code was required for prosecuting non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 for the offences stated hereinabove. The learned trial Judge accepted the submissions made on behalf of non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 and passed the impugned order thereby discharging non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 of all the charges leveled against them in a complaint case and the police chargesheet.

It is how Sessions Case No.54/2003 came to an end.

5. This order is challenged in the present proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the applicant who is mother of the deceased. Learned Counsel Shri Rahul Dhande has submitted that a protection of Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act was not available to non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. It was further submitted that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code also does not extend any protection to non-applicant Nos.1 and 2.

6. As far as Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act is concerned, learned Counsel Shri