The jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission to entertain complaints is limited by the period prescribed in Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

1. During the year 2000, the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police attached to Pattukottai Police Station in Thanjavur District. On the complaint of one Thirunavukkarasu, on 6.11.2000 at 6.00 a.m., he registered a case in Crime No.960/2000 for the offence under Section 399 of IPC against a total number of eight accused of whom the 3rd respondent herein is the 1st accused. The 3rd respondent was arrested by the petitioner in connection with the said case on 6.11.2000 and thereafter, he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai for remand. Accordingly, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody for 15 days. The 3rd respondent, thereafter, filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate seeking bail. The said petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 8.11.2000. Thereafter, he filed a petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur seeking bail. The learned Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner by order dated 16.11.2000 imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent was released from jail and thereafter, he had to comply with the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the said case, on completing the investigation, the petitioner laid a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate against the accused on 15.11.2000 wherein he had reported that the offences allegedly committed by the 3rd respondent and other accused were only punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 427 of IPC. Admittedly, these offences are bailable. Section 399 of IPC was not included in the final report. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai took cognizance on the said final report in C.C.No.135/2001. It appears from the records that the 3rd respondent and others filed petitions before the learned Judicial Magistrate in CMP Nos.541 and 805/2003 seeking discharge from the said case. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai by order dated 19.6.2003 discharged the accused including the 3rd respondent from the case.

2. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent preferred a complaint to the 1st respondent/Tamil Nadu Human Rights Commission on 7.5.2003 alleging that a serious human rights violation had been committed by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent. According to the complainant, though on investigation, it came to light that the offences allegedly committed by the 3rd accused and others were punishable only under Sections 147, 148 and 427 of IPC which are bailable, when the petitions for bail came up for hearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai as well as before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, the petitioner did not bring to the notice of the court that the offences were bailable, as a result, according to the complainant/3rd respondent, he was put in jail and even after release on bail, he had to undergo the ordeal of complying with certain conditions which could be imposed in respect of non-bailable offences. Thus, the act of the petitioner, according to the 3rd respondent, amounts to serious human rights violation and therefore, appropriate orders should be passed by the Human Rights Commission.

3. Before the 1st respondent, the petitioner contended that it is true that he investigated the case and arrested the accused/3rd respondent and later on, he was remanded to judicial custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is true that on completing the investigation, he came to know that the offences said to have been committed by the 3rd respondent and others are only bailable. But, still, according to the petitioner, he formed an opinion on completing the investigation that the offence under Section 399 had not been committed by any of the accused even on 6.11.2000 itself. But, he has stated that he produced the Case Diary before the then Assistant Public Prosecutor for opinion. His opinion was obtained belatedly. Thereafter, he filed a charge sheet in the case o