1. Leave granted.

2. Two cops who are caught in the dock of a criminal court want to pre-empt the trial on the ground of limitation. But the trial court and the High Court did not accede to their plea. Hence they are now before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court. How they got themselves enmeshed in the cobweb of the criminal proceeding, can be narrated in brief:

First appellant was the Sub-inspector of Police and second appellant was a Police Constable attached to Perambra Police Station situated in a moffusil centre within the Calicut district (Kerala). First respondent, a middle aged shopkeeper of Perambra, was living with his wife and three children within the limits of the said Police Station. On 1.9.1995 the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a complaint against the two appellants before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Perambra, complaining that the appellants have committed offences under S.325, 342, 330 and 506(1) IPC. The First Class Magistrate after examining the complaint on oath and after taking cognizance of the said offences, issued process to the appellants. They entered appearance in the Magistrate's court and raised preliminary objection that the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences in view of the bar contained in S.64(3) of the Kerala Police Act (for short 'the K.P. Act') which fixed a period of six months from the date of commission of the offence for taking cognizance thereof. The Magistrate over-ruled the objections. Appellants then moved the High Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (For short 'the Code') for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complainant. They contended that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offences as the complaint was filed only after the expiry of six months of the alleged commission of the offences. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition as per the impugned order.

3. For dealing with the question raised in this appeal, it is necessary to extract, at least briefly, the allegations made in the complaint. They are the following:

On the evening of 23.12.1994 the complainant was called to the police station, he was asked to remain therein till the arrival of the first appellant. But appellant did not arrive at the police station in that evening nor was the complainant permitted to leave the police station. Hence he had to remain inside the police station overnight. On the next morning, both the appellants reached the station. They put the complainant in the lock-up room, and first appellant asked him "did you not steal the articles from the next shop?" and so asking, he started beating the complainant. Thereafter both the appellants together showered a volley of blows all over his body. He fell down. Appellants kept him inside the lock-up room and left the police station. By evening, they returned to the police station and resumed their assault operation during which they inflicted lots of blows on different portions of his body by uttering the words "if you do not tell the truth you will be killed". Thereafter the complainant was asked to sit on the floor and then both the appellants stood on his legs and in that posture, they inflicted blows on him with hands as well as lathi. He again fell down and this time he became unconscious. He was kept in the lock-up room from 24th December, 95 till the morning of 27th December, 95. He was released from the confinement of police station on the morning of 27th after administering a warning that if he divulged to any person outside of what happened he would be trapped in a false case. The above is in substance the allegations in the complaint.

4. S.64 of the K.P. Act deals with initiation of legal proceedings against police officers or magistrates. The first two Sub-sections are intended to afford protection against any penalty or action for damages on account of any act, done by such