N AMRITLAL SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, to revise the order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Guntur, dated 16th October, 1956, whereby he held that section 47 of the Madras District Police Act applied to the petitioner's case.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are : that a reserve police constable, off his duty, went to the New Bombay Talkies of Guntur, having purchased a ticket to witness the cinem a show. The show had not yet commenced. It was all sultry. The fans were not set to work. There arose some quarrel between the proprietor and the constable in relation to the fans. The proprietor reported on phone to the Police Station, Lalapet (requesting at the same time for necessary action) that the said person w creating a scene inside the premises of the hall in a drunken state. The Police officer in charge of the station house deputed a Head Constable who came to the hall. He was shown the reserve constable there in the bench class as the person who was in a drunken state and had created the scene. The Head Constable found in his examination that there was no smell of alcohol ; but upon the insistence of the proprietor he took the constable to the hospital for ascertaining whether he was drunk. The medical report went against the proprietor. Thereafter the Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the proprietor accusing him that he made a false and malicious report against the Police officer, that he was drunk, even though that was not a fact. The proprietor raised a preliminary objection that as the person concerned was a reserve police constable not on duty and had come to the cinema hall as a private person and was acting or purporting to act in his private capacity and not as a Police officer when he created the scene, section 47 did not apply. The learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate repelled this contention on the ground that the wording of the section was not capable of an interpretation that the person concerned should be on duty at the time of the said offence which is attributed to him. This revision petition is directed against this order.

(3.) The learned counsel referred me to a decision of this Court in R. V. Ramarao v State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, (1957) 2 An.W.R. 128,130. It was a case where there was an allegation of corruption against the Police officer. The observations of the learned Judge who decided the case were as follows :