Case Note & Summary
Background: The case arose from a criminal appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the acquittal of a police head constable by the Bombay High Court. The respondent, Narharrao, was attached to Murtizapur Police Station and was investigating offences under the Bombay Police Act against two individuals. He was charged under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(b) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe to show favour in the investigation. Facts: In September 1962, the respondent was investigating cases against Onkar and Harihar under sections 110, 102 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused persons approached the respondent seeking a favour. The respondent demanded Rs. 25 as a bribe for weakening the prosecution case. He accepted Rs. 5 on or about October 14, 1962 and Rs. 10 later. The trial court convicted the respondent. On appeal, the High Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution was barred by limitation under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, because the complaint was filed more than six months after the alleged offence. Legal Issues: The sole legal issue was whether the limitation prescribed under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act applied to the prosecution of a police officer for accepting a bribe, i.e., whether the alleged act was done "under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority" as required by the provision. Arguments: The State argued that the act of bribery was not done under colour of office and therefore the limitation did not apply. The respondent contended that the alleged act was connected with his official duties and thus the prosecution was time-barred. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority" in section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Following its earlier decision in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Venugopal and others, the Court held that for an act to be under colour of office, there must be a reasonable connection between the impugned act and the powers and duties of the office. The Court observed that taking a bribe cannot be said to be an act done under colour of duty, as it is purely a criminal act not authorised by any duty or authority. The Court distinguished the case and held that the High Court erred in applying the limitation provision. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order of acquittal, and remanded the case to the High Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. The Court directed that the respondent is not entitled to the protection of limitation under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. The judgment favored the prosecution.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Limitation for Prosecution of Public Servants - Meaning of "Under Colour of Duty" - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 161(1) - The respondent, a police head constable, was charged under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(b) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting a bribe to weaken a prosecution case. The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, having been launched more than six months after the alleged offence. Held, that the benefit of the six‑months period of limitation is available only when the alleged act of the officer was one done under colour of the duty imposed or the authority conferred on him by any provision of law, or in excess of any such duty or authority. Unless there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it cannot be said that the act was done by the accused officer under the colour of his office. The act of taking a bribe is manifestly not done under colour of office. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution of a police officer for bribery is barred by limitation under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 when the act of bribery was not done under colour of duty.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order of acquittal, and remanded the case to the High Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. The Court held that the respondent is not entitled to the protection of limitation under section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act because the act of taking a bribe is not under colour of duty.
Law Points
- section 161(1) of Bombay Police Act 1951 provides limitation only for acts done under colour of duty or authority
- bribe taking by police officer is not an act under colour of duty
- reasonable connection must exist between alleged act and official powers/duties for limitation protection to apply
