BHABESH KUMAR PAUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application in directed against an appellate order confirming an order of conviction and sentence passed by a Magistrate at Krishnagar.

(2.) The petitioner was a police constable in the district of Nadia. He was placed under suspension on September 21, 1959. Under Rule 881 of the Police Regulations, police officers under suspension are required to reside in the police lines and to attend all parades and roll calls. The petitioner failed to attend the usual roll calls from 4 P. M. on January 7, 1960. He was tried under Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861 for contravening the provisions of Rule 881 and convicted and sentenced to a penalty of two months pay viz. Rs. 96/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for one month. He filed an appeal and the appellate court has upheld the order of conviction and sentence.

(3.) It was at first argued that a constable under suspension cannot be considered to be a "police officer" within the meaning of Section 29 of the Police Act, 1561. Reliance was placed on the case of Queen v. Dinanath Ganguly, 8 Beng LR App 58 and the case of Queen Empress v. Durga, ILR 10 All 489. It appears, however, that Section 8 of the Police Act, 1861, was subsequently amended and it has now been enacted that a Police Officer under suspension shall not cease to be a police officer for the purpose of Section 29 of the Act.