MANGLARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision application is directed against the order dated the 11th december, 1967, passed by the City Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner prays for the quashing of the order of his commitment to face a trial under Section 6 (e) of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary Act, 1950, hereinafter called 'the Act'.

(2.) THE circumstances which have led up to this application, briefly stated, are these. Manglaram applicant was appointed as a constable in the Rajasthan Armed constabulary (R. A. C.) on the 20th of June, 1963. On the 10th of October, 1964, he was attached to the 5th Battalion stationed at Jodhpur, when he absented from duty. His case is that he had orally taken permission to leave the service from the platoon Commander, whereas the case of the prosecution is that he absented without leave. It is not in dispute that on the 11th of October, 1964, he joined as a soldier in the Indian Army. On the 13th of October, 1964, a first information report was lodged at the Police Station, Udaimandir, Jodhpur, against Manglaram for his having deserted the R. A. C. He came to be arrested on the 15th of May, 1966, while he was still in service in Jammu and Kashmir where he was stationed as a member of the Indian Army, and on that very day he was discharged from that service. Enquiry was made against him by the City Magistrate, Jodhpur, and it was urged on his behalf that he was not an officer of the R. A. C. as defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act as he did not sign any statement as required by Section 4 of the Act because there was no attestation by the appropriate authority as envisaged by the said provisions, and therefore, he was not an officer liable to be prosecuted for an offence under Section 6 (e) of the Act. The learned Magistrate framed a charge under Section 6 (e) of the Act, and committed Manglaram to face his trial before the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, holding that the plea of the applicant was merely a technical one. Against that order he has come up in revision before me.

(3.) MR. S. D. Rajpurohit appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that for the sake of argument let it be assumed that Manglaram had signed his statement as required by Section 4 of the Act, but the said statement was not explained to him and duly attested by anyone or the authorities mentioned in Section 4 of the act. Assuming again, the learned counsel submitted that Shri Amarsingh explained and attested the said statement signed by Manglaram, Shri Amarsingh being only of the rank of an Inspector, was not competent to attest it, as required by the provisions of Section 4 of the Act, and therefore, Manglaram did not come to acquire the status of a member of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary and could not incur the liability laid down by Section 6 of the Act. His further submission is that Section 6 of the Act is a penal provision which must be strictly construed. He relied on M. V. Joshi v. M. U. Shimpi, AIR 1961 SC 1494.