The suit for damages for malicious prosecution against a Magistrate or a police officer is regulated by S.64 of The Police Act and must be instituted within six months from the date on which the offence or wrong is alleged to have been committed or done.

1. The revision petitioner during the year 1981 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of the Anthikad Police Station, in Trichur District.

2. While controlling the traffic at Kanjani junction, within the jurisdiction of the Anthikad Police Station, on 29-11-1981 at about 7-30 p.m. the revision petitioner, on seeing the respondent riding a scooter in a rash and negligent manner, wanted him to stop the scooter. The respondent disobeyed the signal and this resulted in the petitioner arresting him on the same day. The petitioner later released the respondent on bail. Subsequently he filed a charge sheet (the charges coming under S.279 I.P.C., S.51(A) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960, S.112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and R.386 and 36(1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules before the Additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate of Trichur. The case was taken on to file by the Magistrate. The Magistrate after trial acquitted the respondent, giving him the benefit of doubt.

3. The respondent thereupon instituted the suit for damages for malicious prosecution. The petitioner in his defence raised a contention that the suit is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in S.64 of the Police Act and hence not maintainable. The issue struck in this connection reads:-

"Whether the suit is maintainable?" This issue has been disposed of in favour of the respondent by the order under challenge.

4. The controversy centres round the question as to the date from which the period of limitation for the suit begins to run. The counsel for the respondent argues that since the action being one for malicious prosecution, the question as to whether the same is barred by limitation requires to be considered under Art.74 of the Limitation Act. This Article provides that an action or compensation for malicious prosecution shall be initiated within one year from the date on which the plaintiff was acquitted or the prosecution was otherwise terminated. If that be so, the counsel argues, the suit initiated within one year of the order acquitting him by the Magistrate is not barred by limitation. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner contends that in order to maintain the suit the same shall be filed within six months of the date on which the offence or the wrong is alleged to have been committed or done. The learned counsel therefore argues that the suit, filed after the expiry of six months of the date on which the alleged wrong was committed, is barred by limitation.

5. The question thus arising for consideration is, "is the suit admittedly filed after six months of the date on which the wrong alleged to have been done, is barred by limitation?". The answer depends upon the construction of S.64 of the Police Act read with S.29(2) of the Limitation Act.

6. Before we go into this aspect, it is relevant to note that the Police Act, the provisions of which have come up for construction, is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the police force in the State of Kerala. The fundamental principle that should be borne in mind while construing the provisions of a consolidating Act is this: The courts must construe the provisions of a consolidating Act as forming a code complete in itself and exhaustive of the matters dealt with therein. That means we should ascertain the true scope of the above section with due regard to the language of that Section and without reference to the common law rule. (See Subha Rao v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 1956 SC.604 and Bank of England v. Vagliano (1891 (AC) 107 (HL).

7. S.64 of The Police Act would indicate that the legislature by introducing this Section has made an inroad into the common law of England which provides the basis for an action for damages for malicious prosecution initiated against a Magistrate or a police officer, the same can be taken cognisance of by the court only if the plaintiff satisfies the conditions stipulated under S.64 of the Police Act. This section prov