The appellant.
1954, and mention the true state of affairs is It was also pleaded that Rule 542 of the Bombay Police Manual barred his prosecution as prior permission of the District Superintendent of Police had number been taken.
On these allegations the appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions judge, Bijapur, on a charge under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code.
Appeal by special leave from the judgmEnt and order dated March 8, 1961, of the Mysore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court agreed with the Trial Court that an offence under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code had been made out.
The prosecution case is that numbersuch thing happened on February 24 , 1954, or February 23, 1954 but that this Panchnama and the report were falsely prepared by the appellant with the dishonest intention of saving Nabi Sab Kembhavi who had actually been caught with Ganja from legal punishment.
A report to the same effect was also prepared.
He pleaded number guilty and companytended that the Panchnama and the report which are challenged by the prosecution as a false Panchnama were companyrectly prepared by him on February 23.
was however companyvicted by the Trial Court under s. 218 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
The defence under.
February 24, 1954, it is alleged, the appellant had a new Panchnama prepared in which it was falsely recited that a person who was companying towards the village of Budhihal ran away on seeing the Panchas and the Havaldar, after throwing away a bundle and this bundle was found to companytain 9 packets of Ganja weighing one tola each.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDiCTION Criminal Appeal No.
Anil Kumar Gupta and R. K. Gary, for the appellant.
Rule 542 of the Bombay Police Manual was also rejected on the ground that this Rule had numberstatutory force.
These 15 packets of Ganja were seized and for this seizure the appellant prepared a Panchnama in which however he incorrectly showed the seizure of 9 packets of Ganja only.
362 of 1959.
The date in the Panchnama was mentioned as February 23, 1954.
144 of 1961.
Against that order,, he appealed to the High Court of Mysore.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the appellants prosecution was barred by the special rule of limitation in s. 161 1 of the Bombay police Act, 1951.
In February 1954, the appellant was employed as a Head Constable at the Kalkeri Outpost attached to the Hippussagi Police Station.
Gopalakrishnan and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
1962 November 9.
On February 23, 1954, the appellant went to Budhihal Road on receipt of information about the smuggling of Ganja from the then Hyderabad State to Kalkeri and at about 2 or 3 p.m. actually caught one Nabi Sab Kembhavi with a bundle companytaining 15 packets of Ganja.
