JUDGMENT : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant. 2. The present appeal is filed under Section 374, Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and presiding officer of Human Rights Court at Bijapur in Spl.(HR) 1/11. On the basis of a complaint filed under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) before the Special Court at Bijapur, a trial was held against these petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 355, I.P.C. Ultimately all the appellants have been convicted for the said offence and they have been sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo SI for 2 months each. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.6.2013 which is called in question in this appeal on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. 3. Facts leading to the filing of the complaint and consequential trial held by the special court are as follows: (a) The respondent-complainant, Ramachandran was working as Senior Section Engineer, Permanent Way Department (Engineering) in South Western Railway, Bijapur, and was in charge of maintenance of the railway track in the section between Bijapur and Nimbal railway stations. He chose to file a petition under Rule 6 of the Protection of Human Rights Rules, 2006, alleging that the appellants herein had indulged in uncivilized atrocities against him in order to extract money from him. It is alleged that there was a report about the theft of CST 9 plates in Bijapur-Bagalkot section and 1st accuse who was the inspector of Railway Protection Force (RPF), was directed to investigate into the matter by A-9, Chief Security Commissioner; 2nd accused was directed to supervise and monitor. (b) During the course of investigation, the complainant was arrested at 11.15 p.m. on 30.3.2006 by the 1st accused on the ground that he had stolen railway property. He was kept in the lock-up of RPF office at Bijapur from 11.15 on 30.3.2006 to 10.30 p.m. on 31.3.2006. During the said period, it is alleged that complainant was made to sit on the floor with only an undergarment to cover himself. Accused Nos. He was kept in the lock-up of RPF office at Bijapur from 11.15 on 30.3.2006 to 10.30 p.m. on 31.3.2006. During the said period, it is alleged that complainant was made to sit on the floor with only an undergarment to cover himself. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 indulged in atrocities in order to extract confession and money. It is alleged these accused persons demanded him to pay Rs. 1,40,000/- to release him and he did not yield to their pressure. (c) It is alleged that the accused persons then took the complainant to the office of the Deputy Station Superintendent, Bijapur, at about 3.30 a.m. on 31.3.2006 and threatened the said officer, Mr. T. Damodaran to arrange for the said amount to secure the early release of his colleague. The said officer expressed his inability to mobilize the said amount. Enraged by such refusal, the accused brought the complainant-Ramachandran back to the lock-up and continued to torture him. He was paraded on the railway platform at 12.30 p.m. on 31.3.2006 in almost naked condition and on bare feet was the allegation. He was handcuffed with the end of the long chain securing the handcuffs and they dragged him like a dog. (d) After coming to know of the torture meted out to him, his wife sent a telephonic message to accused Nos. 8 and 9 to take appropriate action against accused Nos. 1 to 7 and also complained to National Human Rights Commission on 8.5.2006. Accordingly Sri R. Shivakumar, ADEN, Bijapur, was asked to conduct an enquiry and he held an elaborate enquiry. The report was submitted by him alleging inhuman acts committed by accused Nos. 1 to 7. Later on, it is alleged, accused Nos. 8 and 9 virtually slept on the said report and refused to accept the same and subsequently ordered an independent enquiry by Sri Joseph Beerannavar, APO, Recruitment, RRC, South Western Railway, UBL. (e) The complainant himself is examined as PW1 and three more witnesses are examined to bring home the guilt of the accused. Plea was recorded for the offence under Section 355, I.P.C. only. Ten exhibits have been got marked. Accused have been examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Their case is one of total denial of all the allegations leveled against them. They have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf. 4. Plea was recorded for the offence under Section 355, I.P.C. only. Ten exhibits have been got marked. Accused have been examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Their case is one of total denial of all the allegations leveled against them. They have not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf. 4. The learned judge of the special court has framed the following points for consideration as found in page 10 of the impugned judgment 1. Whether the complainant has proved that on 31.3.2006 at 12.30 P.M. accuse-1 to 7 have taken him barefoot from RPF police station to Railway Platform, Bijapur by putting handcuffs with leading chain without shirt and dishonoured him in violation of the human rights as specified u/s. 2(d) of the Act and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s. 355 I.P.C.? 2. What order? He has answered point No. 1 in the affirmative insofar as it relates to the offence punishable under Section 355, I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the very complaint filed before the special court was time barred and the special court could not have entertained the complaint in view of the inhibition found in Section 20(3) of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, as also Section 468, Cr.P.C. 6. Per contra, Mr. Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP for the respondent-complainant has supported the judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that the learned judge has assessed the evidence on the basis of broad preponderance of probabilities and that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PWs-1 to 4. 7. After going through the records and hearing arguments, the following points arise for consideration of this court: (1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant before the special court against these appellants was time barred? (2) Whether the trial court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 355, I.P.C.? REASONS Point No. 1: Section 355, I.P.C. reads as follows: "355. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation-whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine, or with both." 8. The maximum punishment contemplated for the offence would extend up to 2 years or fine or both. It is a non-cognizable and bailable offence triable by any magistrate and compoundable offence also. In view of Section 2(d) of the Act, criminal proceedings were initiated before the special court dealing with offences arising out of Human Rights Protection Act. 9. Section 468, Cr.P.C. reads as follows: "468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation-(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. [(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more sever punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]" 10. It speaks about the bar to take cognizance after the lapse of the limitation period. There is a legal inhibition for any criminal court to take cognizance of offences after the lapse of 3 years from the date of its commission, if the punishment does not exceed 3 years. In the present case, the act complained of against these appellants was dated 30.3.2006 and 31.3.2006 and the complaint was filed on 25.3.2010. Plea was recorded for the offence punishable under Section 355, I.P.C. for which the maximum punishment is up to 2 years. Therefore the complaint was clearly barred under Section 468, Cr.P.C. 11. Even otherwise, Section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act speaks about the time limit within which civil or criminal cases will have to be initiated against members of the Railway Force. Section 20 has three sub-clauses and it reads thus: "20. Therefore the complaint was clearly barred under Section 468, Cr.P.C. 11. Even otherwise, Section 20 of the Railway Protection Force Act speaks about the time limit within which civil or criminal cases will have to be initiated against members of the Railway Force. Section 20 has three sub-clauses and it reads thus: "20. Protection of acts of members of the Force-(1) In any suit or proceedings against any member of the force for any act done by him in the discharge of his duties, it shall be lawful for him to plead that such act was done by him under the orders of a competent authority. (2) Any such plea may be proved by the production of the order directing the act, and if it so proved, the member of the Force shall thereupon be discharged from any liability in respect of that act so done by him, notwithstanding any defect in the jurisdiction of the authority which issued such order. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any legal proceeding, whether civil or criminal, which may lawfully be done under the powers conferred by, or in pursuance of, any provisions of this Act or the rules thereunder shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed and not otherwise thereof shall be given to the person concerned and his superior officer at least one month before the commencement of such proceeding." 12. Thus appellants are squarely covered under the protection available in Section 20(3) of the Act. Even on this ground also, the complaint initiated before the special court was specifically barred by time. 13. No provision is found in Section 20 of the Act to condone the delay in filing the complaint. Section 11 of the Act which has come into effect from 1.7.2004 speaks about the duties of the members of the Railway Force. It is reproduced below: "11. Duties of members of Force-It shall be the duty of every superior officer and member of the Force- a. Promptly to execute all orders lawfully issued to him by his superior authority. Section 11 of the Act which has come into effect from 1.7.2004 speaks about the duties of the members of the Railway Force. It is reproduced below: "11. Duties of members of Force-It shall be the duty of every superior officer and member of the Force- a. Promptly to execute all orders lawfully issued to him by his superior authority. b. To protect and safeguard railway property, passenger area and passengers; c. To remove any obstruction in the movement of railway property or passenger area; and d. To do any other act conducive to the better protection and security of railway property, passenger area and passengers." 14. In the case of MANIKLAL & OTHERS v. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER (Crl. Misc. Petition No. 1267/09) disposed of on 21.9.2011, it has been reiterated that the protection is available to the members of the Force in terms of Section 20(3) of the Act. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment, it is held that the provisions of Section 20 of the Act are mandatory in nature and no action could be initiated against any member of the Force without fulfilling the requirements thereof. The decision rendered in the case of D.S. BHORIA AND ANOTHER v. N. SINGH (1970 Crl.L.J. 642) and NARESH MOHAN PRASAD AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2000 Crl.L.J. 424) have been referred to hold that prosecution against any member of the Force cannot be continued without fulfilling the mandatory provisions of Section 20(3) of the Act. In fact, the High Court of Patna had quashed the very proceedings initiated against a member of the Force on the ground that action had been initiated after the lapse of the statutory period mentioned therein. 15. Viewed from any angle, the proceedings initiated by the complainant before the special court was clearly barred by time and no cognizance could have been taken by the special judge and hence initiation of proceedings was not maintainable. Accordingly point No. 1 is answered in the negative. 16. Point No. 2: Admittedly the plaintiff was accused in a case in Crime No. 2/06, a case registered by the 1st accused for the alleged theft of CST 9 plates belonging to the Railways. Ultimately he was acquitted. The fact that he was produced before the magistrate by the police is not in dispute. 16. Point No. 2: Admittedly the plaintiff was accused in a case in Crime No. 2/06, a case registered by the 1st accused for the alleged theft of CST 9 plates belonging to the Railways. Ultimately he was acquitted. The fact that he was produced before the magistrate by the police is not in dispute. He was enquired, as a matter of procedure to know as to whether he had anything to say about any alleged torture meted out by the police. If really he had been tortured, as sought to be projected in the complaint, he would have definitely mentioned about it to the magistrate when he was produced by the Raichur police for the first time. In this regard, the evidence of PW1 itself is relevant. He has deposed that on being produced before the magistrate at Bijapur at 10.00 p.m., he had been asked by the police not to tell anything about the torture meted out to him. He has deposed that when he mentioned to the magistrate that he was asked to walk on pebbles bare footed, accused diverted him so that the magistrate could not understand anything. It is his case that he showed the injuries sustained of his feet and in spite of the same, the magistrate sent him to judicial custody. If really he had complained to the magistrate in the manner deposed, the magistrate would have definitely made a mention of it and would have sent him for medical test and treatment. 17. Certified copy of the order sheet maintained by the JMFC III Court at Bijapur relating to RPF Crime No. 2/06 dated 21.2.2006 is filed before this Court along with an application. The magistrate has written as follows: "Order Sheet dated: 31.03.2006 Accused No. 4 viz N. Ramachandran was produced before me at 9-30 p.m. in my house office by Inspector of RPF viz A.H. Makandar A4 complains of no ill-treatment by police. A4 submitted that he is diabetic patient and A4 was produced before me on bare foot. The RPF inspector was directed to provide him footwear and also to provide medicines if necessary. The A4 did not offer bail. The RPF inspector filed application for remand of A4 to police custody, since the property worth Rs. 30-40 lakhs is to be recovered from A4. Perused the application and also relevant documents produced by RPF inspector submitted. The RPF inspector was directed to provide him footwear and also to provide medicines if necessary. The A4 did not offer bail. The RPF inspector filed application for remand of A4 to police custody, since the property worth Rs. 30-40 lakhs is to be recovered from A4. Perused the application and also relevant documents produced by RPF inspector submitted. At the stage one S.S. Bashetti Advocate files Memo of appearance of accused No. 4. Also joint application U/S. 437 of Cr.P.C. for release of A4 as bar. Other copies served upon by the Inspector RPF Davangere for objections for the bail application. Case posted on 01.04.2006 until then A4 is remanded to judicial custody. The A4 is directed to be produced at 3-00 p.m. on 01.04.2006. Sd/- 31.03.2006" 18. On a plain reading of the order sheet dated 31.3.2006, it is clear that the accused had not complained of any torture or ill-treatment allegedly meted out to him except that he was diabetic. Normally no accused would be allowed by the police to go into the chamber of the magistrate with slipper or shoes and therefore he was brought on bare foot to the chambers of the magistrate. Even on facts, the alleged ill-treatment is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence point No. 2 is also answered in the negative. 19. In the light of my findings on point Nos. 1 and 2, the accused will have to be acquitted and the appeal will have to be consequently allowed. 20. Accordingly the following order is passed: ORDER The appeal filed under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence in Special (Human Rights) Case No. 1/11 before the Principal Sessions Judge/Human Rights Court, Bijapur, is allowed in its entirety and judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Consequently the appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Bail bonds executed by them and by the surety shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if deposited, to be refunded to the appellants after the appeal period is over. ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By oversight Sri S.P. Beelagi, appellant No. 4 is not typed in stead of appellant No. 5 and he is appellant No. 5 in the petition. Sri N.F. Katabu, is the 4th appellant as per the cause title of the appeal memo. ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO' Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By oversight Sri S.P. Beelagi, appellant No. 4 is not typed in stead of appellant No. 5 and he is appellant No. 5 in the petition. Sri N.F. Katabu, is the 4th appellant as per the cause title of the appeal memo. Hence, office is directed to type the name of appellant No. 4 and address in the cause title. In stead of advocate for appellants it is mentioned as advocate for respondents it shall be typed as A1, A5 and A2 to A4 respectively. Name of Sri Prakash Yeli and Sri S.R. Desai, advocates be typed and the word Addl. SPP be deleted in the cause title of page No. 2.