STATE Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in this revision petition is as to whether the Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1941, is still in force or ceased to be operative at the expiry of six months from the date of its promulgation or from the date of publication of His Majesty's Order in Council called "The India and Burma (Termination of Emergency) Order, 1946, in the Gazette of India. Extraordinary. This question has risen under the following circumstances'

(2.) One Bachan Singh was enlisted as a constable in the Delhi Armed Police with effect from September 16, 1963. On September 28, he was found to be absent. A notice da"ed the 5th October, 1963, was sent to him by registered post requiring him to report for duty in the "Lines" within five days of its receipt The notice was received by him on October 9, 1963, and he did report himself for duty at 3.15 P. M. on October t4, 1963. He, however, again absented himself from duty ,- on October 14, 1963. A demiofficial letter was addressed to him requiring him to immediately report for duty.He was also informed through that letter that on his failure to imnaediately report for duty lie will be prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance

(3.) Bachan Singh got the letter on October 28, 1963 and even made an endorsement that he would soon be reporting for duty but failed to do so A case was, therefore, registered against him under section 7 of the Essential Services(Maintenance) Ordinance.