MEHBOOB KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference raises an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of sec. 29 of the Police Act. 2. The facts giving rise to this reference may be briefly stated as follows. The two petitioners Mehboob Khan and Bhopalnath are constables Nos. 77 and 344 in service in the Rajasthan police force. At the relevant time, they were undergoing a refresher's course in the police lines Bikaner. It is alleged that they collected annas -/4/- from each of their colleagues for the printing of a pamphlet ********************** On an allegation that the conduct of the two petitioners is a contravention of rule 6 of the Rajasthan Government Servants and Pensioners Conduct Rules, 1949, the police submitted charge-sheets against both the petitioners under sec. 29 of the Police Act. During the course of trial, the accused petitioners submitted an application on the 25th October, 1958, praying for the dismissal of the "complaint". In the application it was generally stated that no offence under sec. 29 of the Police Act was prima facie made out or disclosed from the substance of the complaint or the statements of the witnesses. During the arguments it was developed that the petitioners could not be prosecuted under sec. 29 on account of violation of rule 6 of the Rajasthan Government Servants and Pensioners Conduct Rules. It was submitted by the petitioners that sec. 29 deals with the violation and infringement of rules and regulations framed by a competent authority under the Police Act, and sec. 29 cannot be invoked to deal with cases of infringement or violation of rules and regulations under other laws. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner, vide bis order dated the 3rd October, 1958 over-ruled the defence contentions and held that the infringement of rule 6 of the Rajasthan Government Servants and Pensioners Conduct Rules is punishable under sec. 29 of the Police Act. The petitioners thereupon filed a revision before the Sessions Judge Bikaner. He has taken a contrary view. According to him, the words "rule or regulation" used in sec. 29 refer to such rules and regulations as are properly framed by the competent authority, and the competent authority in view of the provisions of sec. 12 of the Police Act can be only the Inspector General of Police. The Rajasthan Government Servants and Pensioners Conduct Rules having not been framed under the Police Act and by the Inspector General of Police, their violation cannot be punishable under sec. 29. The Sessions Judge has also observed that the violation of rule 6 would be punishable under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, and concluded that they are not punishable under sec. 29 of the Police Act. He has consequently made the present reference. 3. Section 29 of the Police Act reads as follows: " 29. Every police officer who shall be guilty of any violation of duty or wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order made by competent authority or who shall withdraw from the duties of his office without permission or without having given previous notice for the period of two months, or who, being absent on leave, shall fail, without reasonable cause, to report himself for duty on the expiration of such leave, or who shall engage without authority in any employment other than his police duty, or who shall be guilty of cowardice, or who shall offer any unwarrantable personal violence to any person in his custody shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty not exceeding three months' pay; or to imprisonmeat, with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both. " It will be proper to point out at the outset that the words "rule or regulation" have not been defined and given meaning in the interpretation clause in the Police Act nor have the words "competent authority" been so defined or given meaning. It will be, therefore necessary to consider the meaning of the 'rule' as given in the General Clauses Act. Sec. 3 (51) of the General Glauses Act defines 'rule' in the following terms : " 'rule' shall mean a rule made in exercise of a power conferred by any enactment, and shall include a regulation made as a rule under any enactment. '' The requirement of 'rule' is that it must be framed in the exercise of statutory powers. The use of the words "any rule or regulation" in sec. 29 in the absence of any definition of rule and regulation in the Police Act cannot be interpreted to refer to the rules chat may be framed under the Police Act only. It will be proper to interpret them in terms of the provisions of the General Clauses Act and to extend them to all rules regulating the conduct of police servants that have been framed by any competent authority under any law. 4. The words "competent authority" as occurring in sec. 29 also cannot be confined only to the Inspector General of Police. Even the Sessions Judge has not interpreted the words "competent authority" in that sense for while dealing with cases of lawful orders, he has held that the competent authority may be persons other than the Inspector General of Police. A lawful order according to him can be given by a person other than the Inspector General of Police. Sec. 12 of the Police Act no doubt authorises the Inspector General of Police to frame some rules for certain purposes, and there can be no doubt that the rules framed by him with the approval of the Government will be rules within the statutory definition of rules in the General Clauses Act and a violation of them will be punishable under sec. 29 of the Police Act. There is, however, no warrant for the further proposition that sec. 12 purports to create Inspector General of police as the only competent authority and 'any rule or regulation' mentioned in sec. 29 must be interpreted in relation to him and rules and regulations properly framed by other competent authorities in the exercise of statutory powers under other Acts are outside the purview of Sec. 29. 5. I may also observe in this connection that the expression "made by the competent authority" should be read with the lawful order, and it will not be proper to co-relate this expression with any rule or any regulation. Rule or regulation as defined in the General Clauses Act pre-supposes framing by a competent authority, and it will be redundant to import the expression "made by a competent authority" in connection with rule or regulation. A "competent authority" in sec. 29 has been used only in connection with lawful orders, the violation of which is sought to the punished under tec. 29. THIS mode of reading sec. 29 favours a wider interpretation of the expression "any rule or regulation" and goes against the narrower interpretation. On a very careful consideration of the language of sec. 29 and on a proper emphasis on the expression "any rule or regulation" and on a proper understanding of the implications of the "rule" as defined in the General Clauses Act, I am inclined to hold that it will be narrowly interpreting sec. 29 to confine a rule or regulation to only such rule or regulation as may be framed by the Inspector General of Police, under sec. 12 of the Act. The object of sec. 29 is to secure in the police force a high sense of discipline, devotion to duty and proper respect for law and rules regulating conduct as Government servants, and a breach or neglect of statutory rules regulating conduct as Government servants framed under any law should be reasonably taken to fall within its terms on considerations both of the general language and the object. The other argument of the Sessions Judge that as the infringement of Rule under consideration is punishable under the Rajasthan Civil Services Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, it cannot be punishable under sec. 29 of the Police Act cannot be accepted for two reasons (i) the proceedings under the Civil Services Rules and the punishment imposed cannot be taken as equivalent to prosecution and conviction so as to bar prosecution under the Police Act, (ii) sec. 36 of the Police Act contemplates liability to prosecution and punishment under different laws and makes ample provision against double jeopardy. I, therefore, find it difficult to accept the view taken by the Sessions Judge. The petitioners' request for dismissal of the case on the above legal objection without trial and consideration of the merits of the case cannot be allowed. 6. The reference is consequently rejected. The Magistrate will hold an inquiry into the merits of the case and dispose it of in accordance with law .