SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1936 Supreme(Mad) 400

VENKATASUBBA RAO
Pulavarti Lakshmanaswami – Appellant
Versus
Mahammad Galah Hussain Saheb Garu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. This appeal raises an important question, namely, whether in an action for a malicious act against a police officer, he is entitled to raise the defence of limitation, relying upon the protection given by Section 53 of the Madras District Police Act (XXIV of 1859). The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant, a Police Sub-Inspector, accusing him falsely of having obstructed a public pathway by heaping bricks, commenced with a malicious motive a prosecution against him (C.C. No. 318 of 1927) on 18th March, 1927, under Sections 188 and 283, Indian Penal Code, and that two days later (on the 20th March) he maliciously instituted another false complaint (C.C. No. 320 of 1927) under Section 291, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the same alleged heaping of bricks. The plaintiff further alleges that although the earlier complaint was enquired into and dismissed, the second charge, instead of being withdrawn, was pressed and continued, which also was ultimately found to be false. The third defendant is a Circle Inspector, who, it is alleged, came on transfer to the village in question. It was his duty, the plaintiff states, to have withdrawn the secon

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top