Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patkar, J.

14. In this case the complainant Narayan Hari lodged a complaint against the Sub-Inspector of Police under Sections 167 and 215 on the ground that he, as a public servant, framed incorrect documents, that is, deliberately took down incorrect statements of witnesses in an investigation made by him in a theft case. The Magistrate held that the prosecution was barred under Section 80, Sub-section (2), of the Bombay District Police Act. The complainant made an application to the Sessions Judge for an order for further inquiry. The learned Sessions Judge agreed with the view of the Magistrate and dismissed the application.

76. The latter question has also been argued before us, For the purposes of this reference, it suffices to state that in an alleged complaint for theft, the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Nasik District recorded the statements of two witnesses, and being of opinion that the complaint was false, forwarded the papers his superior officers to the Magistrate for what is termed a "B" summary, in other words, asking permission of the Magistrate to class the complaint as false. More than sis months after the Sub-Inspector had recorded the statements, Narayan Hari lodged the present complaint against the Sub-Inspector under Sections 167 and 218, Indian Penal Code, in that he had deliberately and inaccurately recorded statements which they never made. The Magistrate and in revision the Sessions Judge were of opinion that the complaint must be dismissed under Section 80, Sub-section (8), of the Bombay District Police Act (IV of 1890), as having been filed more than six months after the date of the act complained of.