The court clarified the interpretation of the limitation period for SHRC's jurisdiction under Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, and emphasized the relevance of investigative reports in human rights violation cases.

1. THE petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.2170 of 2010 has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2010, (reported in 2010 AIHC 3010) whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and the order passed by the State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'SHRC'), whereby fine was imposed on the appellant for violation of human rights of respondent No.2, has been upheld.

2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The appellant was at the relevant point of time posted as Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bettiah. Respondent No. 2 was at loggerheads with one Abhay Prasad concerning a land dispute. Abhay Prasad has had a dispute with respect to a piece of land situate in front of the complainant's house. According to the complainant, he had purchased the land for Rs.3,30,000/- way back in the year 2002, his name had been mutated in the revenue records in pursuance of the order passed in Mutation Case No.284 of 2002-03, and he has been paying rent to the State Government. According to the complainant, Abhay Prasad wanted to grab the land and, with this end in view, got in collusion with the appellant who was then posted there. 2.1 Respondent No. 2 simultaneously forwarded copies of the same complaint to the National Human Rights Commission ("NHRC" for short), as well as the SHRC, alleging therein that the appellant had, on 1.10.2008, beaten him on his palm on the spot with a cane stick, whereafter taken him to the police station, had detained him there for whole day, and had beaten him up thoroughly. He further complained that, on account of collusion between the appellant and Abhay Prasad, the latter had initiated a false criminal case against respondent No. 2. On receipt of the complaint, NHRC did not entertain the complaint and passed the following order:

"The complaints be transmitted to the concerned authority for such action as deemed appropriate."

The office of NHRC forwarded this order to respondent No. 7, who, it appears, initiated an enquiry. 2.2. SHRC took cognizance of the allegations made in the complaint on 30.4.2009, and proceeded with the matter. The appellant did not appear before the Commission leading to the order dated 2.9.2009, whereby the learned Commission held that the appellant was guilty of violation of human rights of respondent No. 2, and, therefore, directed respondent No. 4 to make payment of the monetary compensation of Rs.40,000/- to respondent No. 2 to be recovered from the appellant. Aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2009, the appellant filed a review application before the SHRC, inter alia, on the ground that notice of the proceedings had not been served on him because the same had been forwarded to him as per the address of his last posting whereas he had been transferred to Patna on account of the order of suspension passed against him. SHRC saw reason in this contention and decided to hear the matter afresh. The appellant was given a detailed hearing and, on consideration of the entire materials placed by the appellant, passed order dated 26.11.2009, whereby the review application was dismissed, and the same order was reiterated. The appellant challenged the order dated 26.11.2009, by preferring the writ petition which has been dismissed leading to the present appeal. It may further be indicated that, during the pendency of the proceedings, the State Government placed the appellant under suspension and is being proceeded against departmentally

While assailing the validity of the order of the learned writ court, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in view of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), SHRC could not have been proceeded against after expiry of one year commencing from the act constituting violation of human rights