Ramaswami, J. - (1.) This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated November 11, 1963 in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1963.
(2.) The respondent Narharrao, a police Head Constable was attached to the Murtizapur Police Station in September, 1962. He was investigating offences under Ss. 110, 102 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act against two persons, viz., Onkar and Harihar. It is alleged that Onkar and Harihar approached Narharrao for showing them some favour. The latter demanded Rs. 25 as a bribe for weakening the prosecution case which was to be launched against Onkar and Harhar. The respondent accepted Rs. 5 on or about October 14, 1962 and Rs. 10 on or about October 19, 1962 as illegal gratification. The respondent was tried in the Court of the Special Judge, Akola for accepting bribe under S. 161 Indian Penal Code or alternatively for committing criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties which is punishable under S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, By his judgment dated June 25, 1963 the Special Judge held the respondent guilty of both the offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to a rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. The respondent filed and appeal in the High Court, being Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1963. The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act was a bar to the prosecution of the respondent. The High Court did not discuss in detail the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of the respondent. The High Court did not discuss in detail the question as to whether the prosecution could be launched more than six months after the date of the alleged offence, as required under S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act.
(3.) The question of law presented for determination in this appeal is whether the alleged act of offence was committed by the respondent "under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid" within the meaning of S. 161 (1) of the Bombay Police Act (Bombay Act XXII of 1951). Section 159 of this Act provides as follows: "159. No Revenue Commissioner, Magistrate or Police officer shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of damages on account of an act done in good faith, in pursuance or intended pursuance of any duty imposed or any authority conferred on him by any provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force or any rule, order or direction made or given therein." Section 160 enacts: "160 No public servant or person duly appointed or authorised shall be liable to any penalty or to payment of any damages for giving effect in good faith to any such order or direction issued with apparent authority by the State Government or by a person empowered in that behalf under this Act or "any rule, order or direction made or given thereunder. "Section 161 (1) states as follows: 161. (1) In any case of alleged offence by the Revenue Commissioner, the Commissioner, a Magistrate, Police officer or other person, or of a wrong alleged to have been done by such Revenue Commissioner, Commissioner, Magistrate, Police Officer or other person, by any act done under colour or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid, or wherein, it shall appear to the Court that the offence or wrong if committed or done was of the character aforesaid, the prosecution or suit shall not be entertained, or shall be dismissed, if instituted, more than six months after the date of the act complained of." It is manifest that in order that the accused person against whom a persecution has been launched may get the benefit of six months period of limitation under the section, it must appear to the Court (1) that the offence was committed under colour of any duty imposed or any authority conferred by any provisions of the Bombay Police Act or any other law for the time being in force, or (2) that the act was done in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid. The question arising in this case, therefore, is whether the alleged act of the respondent in accepting bribe was an act done under colour of the duty imposed or the authority conferred on the respondent by any provision of law or in excess of any such duty or authority as aforesaid. In examining this question it is necessary, in the first place, to ascertain what act is complained of and then to see if there is any provision of the Bombay Police Act or any other law under which it may be said to have been done or purported to have been done. In this connection, it is important to remember that an act is not done under colour of an office merely because the point of time at which it is done coincides with the point of time the accused is invested with the powers or duty of the office. To be able to say that an act was done under the colour of an office one must discover a reasonable connection between the act alleged and the duty or authority imposed on the accused by the Bombay Police Act or other statutory enactment. Unless there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the powers and duties of the office, it is difficult to say that the act was done by the accused officer under the colour of his office.;