As per case facts, a Deputy Superintendent of Police filed a complaint against two other police officers, who are the appellants here, alleging various offenses under the Indian Penal Code ... and the Bombay Police Act. This complaint was filed after a prior case involving the respondent, where he was arrested, concluded with the original complaint against him being found false. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance, but the appellants sought discharge citing lack of prosecution sanction. The Sessions Court, in revision, upheld the appellants' objections, dismissing the complaint on grounds of requiring sanction and being time-barred under the Bombay Police Act. However, the High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order, ruling that the Magistrate's initial order was interlocutory and thus not revisable by the Sessions Court. The question arose whether an order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing a criminal complaint for lack of sanction and being time-barred, even if originating from an interlocutory decision by a Magistrate, was revisable, and crucially, whether the prosecution of police officers for acts performed under the 'colour of duty' was indeed time-barred under the specific provisions of the Bombay Police Act. Finally, the Supreme Court clarified that an order which effectively terminates the proceedings is revisable, regardless of its interim nature. The Court then held that the offenses alleged against the police officers, being acts done under the 'colour or in excess of duty or authority', unequivocally fell within the scope of Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act. Since the complaint was filed significantly beyond the one-year (or two-year with sanction) limitation period stipulated by that section, the prosecution was deemed irretrievably barred. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's judgment and reinstating the Sessions Judge's order that had dismissed the complaint.