Back
1996 Supreme(Del) 172
High Court Of Delhi
MANOJ PANT - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Decided On : 02/08/1996
Headnote:Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Section 140 — Protect ion from prosecution — Scope of protection — It is available only in respect of an act in the course of service and also in discharge of duty — An act committed in the course of service but not in discharge of duty is not entitled to protection.
Held:
in order to come under the protective umbrella of Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act, the act must have been done "under colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such duty or authority." In other words, the Section does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a police officer in service but restricts its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done under colour of duty or authority or in excess of any such duty or authority. For instance, and I am borrowing it from P. Arutswami v. State of Madras AIR 1967 SC 776, a police officer in discharge of his duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the prosecution of which sanction may be necessary. But if the same officer commits an act in course of service but not in discharge of his duty then the bar is not attracted.
Section 140 — Protection from prosecution — A police officer after arresting the accused let him of after accepting illegal gratification and substituted another person in his place and destroying official documents to cover his offence — The accused is not entitled to protection in respect of the offence Under Section 161 of IPC.
I have no manner of doubt that it was no part of his official duty to accept illegal gratification and in consideration thereof to let off the real culprit despite clear directions by the superiors to proceed against him and to further replace him by another person and to destroy the record to cover up the whole affair. Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act would thus provide no protection to the petitioner as far as Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned.
Coming to Sections 218, 220, 221, 342 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, I do feel that there was a reasonable nexus between the acts complained of and the official obligation. The record was prepared or got prepared while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Similarly the acts attracting the application of Sections 220 and 221 of the Indian Penal Code were in the exercise of authority vested in the petitioner though he was acting contrary to law. Same can be said about Section 342 and 193 of the Penal Code since the action relates to the discharge of an official duty, although in derogation of that official duty.
( 1 ) IT is a r lition which principally revolves around the ambit and scope of section 140 of the Delhi Police Act. However, before I come into grip with the said provision, let us have a lord-eye view of the case.
( 2 ) SUB-INSPECTOR Manoj Pant of the Delhi Police is facing trial in FIR 118 of 1991 under sections 218, 220, 221, 342, 193 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the case was registered on the complaint made to the Station House Officer, P. S. Geeta Colony on August II, 1991 by Inspector P. S. Patwal of the Special Staff, East District. Since that report is self-speaking, I feel tempted to reproduce the same. It runs as under:
ON 10th August, 1991 S. I. Manoj Pant alongwith the staff of Special Staff, East Distt has apprehended one Lokesh Kumar s/o Mam Chand r/o A/1595, Mansarovar Park, Delhi in case FIR No. 304 dated 10/8/91 under section 411 I. P. C. and 7 - X/55 E. C. Act, P. S. Krishna Nagar. On his disclosure statement, S. I. Manoj Pant has apprehended one Anil Solanki s/o Sukhbir r/o A- 92, Laxmi Garden, Loni Ghaziabad (UP) which was produced before me. I directed S. I. to book the accusdes as per law and on their disclosure 146 Gas cyclinders were received from both the accused. During process, it is reported that SI Manoj Pant has let loose the main accused Anil Solanki and in his place his relative Gajinder Singh s/o Bhami Chand r/o 1/11154 A, Panchsheel Garden Navin Shahdara Delhi was involved in this case with the ulterior motives. It has come in the notice of the senior officers that SI Manoj Pant has released the main accused in the above case with the malafide intention and for illegal gratification. Thus SI Manoj being a public servant framed incorrect record with intention to save proper person from punishment and wrongfully confined to Gajinder Singh. Thus an offence under section 218/220/221/342/193/161, Indian Penal Code. prima facie is made out. A case may be registered and investigation be taken up by the local police as per order. The rukka is being sent through ASI Ishwar Singh of Special Staff.
( 3 ) IT appears that after the registration of case and during investigation statements of number of persons were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. What emerges out from the investigation makes an unfortunate reading. It appears that on August 10, 1991 the petitioner produced two persons namely Anil Kumar Solanki and Lokesh Kumar, before Inspector P. S. Patwal and told him that the said two persons had got recovered 144 duplicate gas cylinders. The Inspector, thereupon, instructed the petitioner to book them as per law and directed S. I. Shiv Raj and others who were also present there at that time, to assist the petitioner in the matter of registraton of the case and preparation of required documents. Later it was decided to get the case registered against the said two persons under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and a ruqqa to that effect was written by Head Constable Aftab at the dictation of the petitioner which after having been duly signed by the petitioner, was sent to the Police Station through Constable Pawan Kumar and Sunil Kumar for registration of the case.
( 4 ) IT further appears that the petitioner had also got prepared from the said Head Constable not only the personal search memos of Lokesh Kumar and Anil Kumar Solanki but the Index of the file as well. On August 11, 1991 not only the said Index but even the said personal search memos were found missing from the file. As if all this was not enough, even Anil Kumar Solanki was found to have been replaced by another gentleman and it so transpired that this was the handiwork of the petitioner and his associates who had charged Rs. 75000. 00 as illegal gratification.
( 5 ) WHAT is further required to be noticed is that during investigation the police managed to recover the original Memo of Personal Search of Anil Solanki, on
