STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIJAY BABURAO TAKLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A prosecution which ought never to have been launched was instituted against respondent V. B. Takle at the material time holding the office of Police Constable in Company D of Group I of State Reserve Police Force (S. R.P.F.) who was sent on deputation to Kerala in about November 1972 and who was obliged to return to his home town at Baroda on account of the sickness of his father in order to tend to him. A very petty matter was blown out of all proportion and the respondent was prosecuted for having deserted his post of duty whilst on active duty and thus having committed an offence under sec. 14 (g) (ii) of the Bombay Reserve Police Force Act 1951 (Act). The learned Additional Sessions Judge Baroda who tried the respondent in Sessions Case No. 172/74 acquitted him by his order dated January 27 1975 on two grounds namely (1) lack of territorial jurisdiction and (2) even assuming that there was jurisdiction the prosecution had failed to establish that the respondent was on active duty and that he had deserted his post. The State has preferred the present appeal in order to question the validity of the aforesaid order of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Judge.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor has urged the following submissions in support of this appeal :

(3.) So far as the first point is concerned the State must succeed forthwith for there is no escape from the conclusion that the learned trial Judge had jurisdiction to try the appellant at Baroda in connection with the alleged offence. It appears that the attention of the learned trial Judge was not called to sec. 10 of the Act which inter alia provides that every reserve police officer shall for the purpose of the said Act be deemed to be always on duty in the State. That the respondent is a reserve police officer as defined in sec. 2 (h) of the Act is incapable of being disputed and has not been disputed. Under the circumstances by virtue of the deeming clause embodied in sec. 10 it can be said that the respondent was on duty within the State of Gujarat at all material times. The view taken by the learned trial Judge is that inasmuch as it was the prosecution case that the respondent had deserted his post of duty whilst he was posted at Allepey in Kerala State it cannot be said that the offence of desertion from active duty within the meaning of the relevant provision was committed within the territories of the State of Gujarat. If the attention of the learned trial Judge had been called to the aforesaid deeming provision he would have immediately realised that by virtue of the said deeming provision the respondent could be said to be on duty within the State of Gujarat at the material time when he was supposed to have committed the offence though physically he was in Kerala. If the said provision is read with sec. 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (the new Code does not apply to the previous proceedings instituted before it came into force) inasmuch as there is uncertainty in which local area the offence was committed the offence could be tried by any Court within the territories of Gujarat including the Baroda Court. It may be stated that the learned counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the decision of the trial Court on this point was altogether unsustainable in view of the aforesaid provisions. The decision of the learned trial Judge on this point must therefore be reversed and it must be held that the Baroda Court had jurisdiction.