STATE Vs. RAWATSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Rawatsingh by the sessions Judge of Jodhpur of offences under Section 6 (e), Rajasthan Armed constabulary Act (No. 12 of 1950) (hereinafter called the Act), and Section 409, penal Code.

(2.) THE facts of the case are not in dispute and these are that the accused Rawat singh was enrolled in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Force in 1951. At the time of enrolment certain articles, which form the kit of a member of the force, were handed over to him. It appears that the accused left his post on 5-5-1953, without leave. The matter was reported to the Company Commander Shri sanwatsingh, and it was found that certain articles out of the kit were missing. Thereafter, a constable was sent after the accused, and he was arrested at ramdeo which is the rail-head for Jaisalmere where the accused was posted at the time. He was brought back to Jaisalmer, when five of the articles out of his kit were found in his possession, namely a blanket, a bush-coat, a water bottle, woolen socks and a jersy. The accused was then handed over to the police, and was prosecuted.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of both the offence under section 6 (e) of the Act as well as under Section 409, I. P. C. Section 6 (e)provides for punishment for deserting the service, and the question that was raised before the learned Sessions Judge was about the meaning of the word 'desertion'. He was of the view that 'desertion' implied abandonment of one's post coupled with the intention not to return at all. Learned Deputy Government Advocate does not contest this meaning of the word 'desertion'. There can be no doubt that the word 'desertion' does not simply mean leaving the post or mere departure from the post without permission. It means something more, and that something more is the intention never to return to the post, or to go away with the idea of avoiding hazardous duty, or shirking any important service. It is not the prosecution's case that the accused left with the idea of avoiding any hazardous duly or shirking any important service. Nor has it been satisfactorily proved that the accused had no intention of returning to duty at all. All that the prosecution has been able to prove in this case is that the accused left his post without leave. The accused has admitted that. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in acquitting the accused of an offence under Section 6 (e) of the Act.