IN RE: BAGGIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 47, Madras District Police Act (Act 24 of 1859) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 in default to three weeks' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts of the case may be briefly stated' as follows: The petitioner sent a petition, Ex. P. 1, dated 28 -5 -1951 to the Inspector General of Police alleging therein that P.C. 2144 of B. 2 station was troubling her daily asking for a mamool of Rs. 10, that he was inducing her to run a brothel and that he was taking bribes. The petition was forwarded to the Sub -Inspector of B. 2 station for enquiry. P.W. 2, the Sub -Inspector of B. 2 station inquired into the matter and sent a report that the allegations are false and that they were made with a view to remove the police surveillance on her. Thereupon this complaint was laid in Court against the accused for an offence under Section 47, Madras District Police Act.

(3.) AS regards the second point about Section 16, City Police Act, I do not see how it takes away the right under the Madras District Police Act, which as stated already is applicable to the police in the City of Madras. Section 47 creates an offence in respect of not only allegations made against the police officer, but also for assaulting or resisting any police officer in the execution of his duty and for aiding or inciting any other person so to assault or resist any police officer. This has nothing to do with the privileges of a constable in the City. Even if it is considered as a privilege, I do not see how it can make any difference as the Madras District Police Act applies to the City also. There is therefore no substance in either of the two points raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner.