Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

criapln3398-16 5] Mr. Amol Sawant the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the FIR the first act which is alleged to be an offence attributed against the applicant committed on 28/03/2009 and subsequent act alleged to be committed on 13/04/02009. Charge sheet has been filed on 01/02/2013 which is beyond the statutory period of six months provided under Section 161 of Maharashtra Police Act and therefore the cognizance of offence ought not have been taken by the learned Magistrate. He has further submitted that even no previous sanction from the State Government was obtained for entertaining the prosecution within extended period of 2 years from the date of commission of offence as provided under provisions to Section 161(1) of the said Act. He has further submitted that the applicant was posted as police officer with police station Udgir and the acts alleged amounting to criminal offence referred in charge-sheet being very much connected with discharge of his duty as a police officer the applicant is entitled for protection under Section 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

7] On the other hand the learned APP for the State submitted that protection under Section 161 of Maharashtra Police Act is not available to the applicant. He has submitted that the offence for which the applicant is charged can not be termed as act committed in discharge of duty or as an authority as a police officer. So also the offence as registered against the applicant can not be termed as act under the colour or in excesses of such duty or authority as police officer. It is therefore contended that the application filed is without any criapln3398-16 basis and merits and liable to be rejected.

9] Plain reading of Section 161 contemplates filing of suits or prosecution in respect of acts done under colour or in excess of any duty or authority conferred on the officers mentioned in the said provision. If we consider the case, set out in the application and the submissions advanced, it is the contention of the applicant that as the applicant was posted as police officer and acts alleged amounting to offence being committed in discharge of the duties as a police officer the protection under Section 161 is available to the applicant and the prosecution instituted beyond the period of 6 months from the commission of alleged act, the prosecution is not maintainable. It is the contention of the applicant that Section criapln3398-16 161 of the said Act is a protective umbrella which prevents police officers from facing unwarranted prosecution. The said provision has been incorporated in the statute with paramount consideration that police officer shall discharge their duty without any fear. It is contended that it is nowhere the case of the complainant that he has not registered the offence against the accused persons, after the person was caught with charas.

It was also revealed during the course of investigation that one of the accused who was caught with the Sandal wood and detained at police station for 2 days, later on allowed to go to his house by accepting Rs.40,000/- as bribe. There is a statement to this effect made by the person who has paid the amount to the applicant. There are number of police personnel who have deposed against the applicant about various misconducts and activities of the applicant including preparation of false panchanama, changing the panchanama, creating panchanama in back date and forcing the subordinates to change the documents. Therefore, the offences alleged against the applicant cannot be termed as an act falling within the scope of Section 161 of Maharashtra Police Act. The act of cheating, fabrication of record, misappropriation of property alleged criapln3398-16 against the applicant cannot be termed as an act for which protection under Section 161 of the Act can be claimed. The act alleged against the applicant cannot be termed as act done under colour or in excess duty or authority as a police officer.