BABU RAM UPADHYA Vs. UTTAR PRADESH GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of an order of dismissal passed by opposite-party No. 2 and subsequently confirmed by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 1.

(2.) It appears that the applicant was a Sub-Inspector of Police appointed in December, 1948. In June, 1953, he happened to be posted at Sitapur. On 6-9-1953 the applicant was returning from a village known as Madhwapur where he had gone in connection with the investigation of a theft case when he saw a person who was subsequently found to be Tika Ram coming from, the side of a canal and going hurriedly towards a field. The movements of Tika Ram roused some suspicion in the mind of the applicant. One Lalji, an ex-patwari also happened to be with the Sub-Inspector at that time. Tika Ram was called and it was found that he was carrying something in the folds of his Dhoti which he was trying to hide with his hand. The applicant asked him to produce the Potli which Tika Ram had and on examination it was found to contain currency notes. They were examined by the applicant and were counted by him and Lalji the ex-patwari. The notes were subsequently returned by Lalji to Tika Ram. Tika Ram went away and when he counted the currency notes at his house he found that they were short by Rs. 250/-. He then made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 9-9-1953 in which he narrated the above facts. An inquiry was then made by the Superintendent of Police and ultimately departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were taken against the applicant. These proceedings resulted in the dismissal of the applicant and he has, therefore, come up to this Court with this petition for the issue of a writ.

(3.) The first point on which the order of dismissal has been attacked by the applicant is that the provisions of paragraph 486 of the Police Regulations had not been observed and as such the proceedings taken under Section 7 of the Police Act were invalid and illegal. Paragraph 486 lays down the procedure and the conditions for departmental trial under Section 7 of the Police Act. It is expressly provided that every information received by the Police relating to the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer shall be dealt with in the first place under Chapter XIV, Cr. P. C., according to law, and a case under the appropriate section will be registered in the police station concerned. There is a proviso attached to Sub-paragraph I of Para. 486 which lays down certain exceptions. One of the exceptions is that no case will be registered by the police if the information is received, in the first instance, by a Magistrate and forwarded by the District Magistrate to the Police. The proviso, however, does not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch, as there is no allegation that the information which was conveyed to the Superintendent of Police by means of the application made by Tika Ram was given to a Magistrate in the first instance. The other point which is material is whether the information was in respect of a cognizable offence. Tika Ram had in his application made to the Superintendent of Police clearly mentioned that he had in his possession currency notes of the value of Rs. 650/- and the Potli containing these notes was given to the Sub-Inspector when he wanted to search and that the currency notes were returned to him after examination. The Sub-Inspector evidently never meant to take away the money but he wanted to examine the contents of the Potli as Tika Ram was found to behaving in a Suspicious manner.