LAL CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSELY speaking, shorn of all unnecessary details, the prosecution case as disclosed at the trial is, that on March 24, 1976 Lal Chand petitioner was posted as Moharrir Incharge of the District Malkhana. Hissar, in the rank of a Read -Constable. On that day, he moved an application dated March 23, 1976 (Exhibit P.B./I) to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, relating to case F.J.R. No. 200 dated 16.11.1970, under Section 411, Indian Penal Code of Police Station G.R.P. Hissar. He prayed therein that the case property, which was lying deposited in the treasury, be handed over to him, so that he could deposit the same with the District Nazir. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed Oat application on the same day. It is alleged but the petitioner after withdrawing the amount of Rs. W -50 from the Treasury neither deposited it with the District Nazir, Hissar, nor handed it over to the complainant. who was entitled to get it back. The petitioner was held guilty and convicted under Section 409 Indian Penal Code by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hissar and sentenced to 3 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month vide his judgment dated December 10, 1979. Being aggrieved with the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the accused petitioner went up in appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar, but without any Success.

(2.) THE only point pressed upon me is that the Courts below have gone wrong in holding that the compliance with Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was not a condition precedent to the prosecution of a police officer in a Court of law. I find no merit in this submission. A plain reading of the said Rule shows that its application is confined to department enquiries only. This controversy has been set at rest by a decision of this Court in Hoshiar Singh v. The State, 1965 P.L.R. 48 wherein it has been held that Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules was not intended or could not have the effect of imposing as a condition precedent to the trial of a police officer in a court of law, a sanction or an order by the District Magistrate, as contamlated therein. The language appears to he confined only to departmental enquiries. The investigation for establishing a prima. facie case is merely meant to guide the District Magistrate uncontrolled by the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, whether or not a departmental proceedings should be initiated against the guilty party. and it is the procedure and the punishment controlling the departmental proceedings alone, which appear to have been prescribed by this rule. The ratio of Hoshiar Singh's case (supra) has been approved by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurbaksh Singh : Cri. Appeal No. 144 of 1975 decided on November 15, 1979, wherein it has been observed as under : - "As rightly pointed out in Hoshiar Singh v. State, 1965, Punjab L.R. 438, by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court, this rule was never intended to have the effect or imposing as a condition precedent to the trial of a police officer in a Court of law, a sanction or order by the District Magistrate. We approve the ratio of Hoshiar Singh's case. which seems to have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge while deciding the present case."

(3.) NO other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition fails and is herein dismissed.