LAWS(CAL)-1955-8-35

SUMIR CHANDRA MOULIK GUPTA Vs. THE STATE

Decided On August 05, 1955
Sumir Chandra Moulik Gupta Appellant
V/S
THE STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this case was convicted under Sec. 29 of the Police Act (Act V of 1861) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three weeks.

(2.) The facts shortly stated are that premises No. 92/C/1 Tollygunge Circular Road was at one time requisitioned by Government for military occupation. Sometime in 1947 the military personnel left the premises but there was no order derequisitioning the house. In May, 1948, some refugees went into occupation without the permission of the military authorities. On Aug. 28, 1954, the Petitioner who is a sub-inspector of police attached to the District Enforcement Branch, 24-Pargands, wrote a letter to the Garrison Engineer, Fort William, complaining of theft of certain fixtures etc. from the premises a portion of which he in fact had been occupying since 1948. On receipt of that information the military authorities were put upon an enquiry and the Petitioner was found actually in occupation of the eastern portion of the premises. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police, 24-Pargands, by the Garrison Engineer. Enquiries undertaken by the Superintendent of Police. 24-Pargands, having confirmed the information received that the Petitioner had been in unlawful occupation of a portion of the premises, the Petitioner was directed to vacate the premises within a certain date. The Petitioner took time on the ground of illness to comply with the order; but at last he not having vacated the premises a complaint under Sec. 29 of the Police Act was preferred against him on Oct. 29, under orders of the Superintendent of Police, 24-Pargands.

(3.) In the complaint thus preferred, the gravamen of the offence alleged against the Petitioner was that although he had been ordered by the Superintendent of Police, 24-Pargands, to remove himself from the premises in question he disobeyed the order thus lawfully made by competent authority and was in consequence liable to be convicted under Sec. 29 of the Police Act (Act V of 1861).