Judgment

NATARAJAN, J. - This appeal by certificate granted under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Raj Kumar, A.S.I. v. The State of Punjab 1976 Chand LR (Cri) 39 allowing a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the respondent. The objective in filing the appeal, it was conceded by Mr. R. S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the State is the determination of a larger issue transcending the narrow confines of the quashing of the criminal proceedings against the respondent viz. the construction of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules and its applicability to criminal prosecutions launched against the members of the Punjab Police Service for offences under the Indian Penal Code and other Acts.

2. The controversy regarding the ambit of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules has arisen in the following circumstances. One Jamuna Devi Mukhtiar Kaur gave a report against the respondent, who was an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police Service, to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patiala alleging demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 200/- by him for releasing her husband and brother on bail bonds in a case pertaining to a land dispute. A first information report was registered and a trap was laid for the respondent and he was apprehended as soon as the marked currency notes treated with phenolphthalene were handed over to him and the marked currency notes were recovered from him. After completion of investigation, the respondent was charge-sheeted before the Special Judge, Sangrur. The respondent appeared before the Special Judge and raised an objection to the framing of charges against him on the ground the investigation of the case was in contravention of Rule 16.38. The Special Judge overruled the objection and framed charges and posted the case for trial.

3. The respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure (Sic) before the Special Judge. As there were conflicting decisions of the High Court in the interpretation of Rule 16.38, a learned single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench and in turn the Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench. A Full Bench of the High Court reviewed the earlier decisions and held that Rule 16.38 is mandatory and not directory in character and secondly the mandate would govern criminal prosecutions as well as departmental enquiries in equal measure and as such any prosecution launched or departmental enquiry held in violation of the terms of the Rule would vitiate the proceedings concerned. Having interpreted Rule 16.38 thus, the Full Bench noticed that the investigation against the respondent had not been done in accordance with Rule 16.38 and therefore the Bench allowed the petition and quashed the charges framed against the respondent. The High Court, however, granted a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) to the State to file and appeal to this Court and that is how the appeal is before us.

4. What, therefore, falls for consideration is whether the procedure prescribed in Rule 16.38 calls for observance in the case of departmental enquiries alone or whether it would govern criminal prosecutions also for offences under the Indian Penal Code and other Acts; and secondly whether the Rule is mandatory in character or only directory. Our task has been considerably lightened by a pronouncement on the first question, with which we are primarily concerned, by another Bench of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Charan Singh (1981) 2 SCC 197 declaring that Rule 16.38 cannot govern criminal prosecutions against the members of the Police Force as it cannot override the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. In spite of the said pronouncement, with which we are in respectful agreement, we feel it necessary to deal with the matter at some length because of certain misconceptions contained in the judgment of