( 1 ) THE main substratum of this appeal preferred by a convicted police personnel, is the tale of the protector of Law and Order who turns perpetrator if in purported exercise of personal right to organise and resort to Strike beyond the frontiers of law and horizons of Justice warranting appreciation of and adjudication under the several provisions of Law relating Police. Personnel and Police Force in Inida.

( 2 ) BY filing this appeal, the appellant who is original accused has assailed judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed against him, by the learned Additional sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Rural, on 30. 12. 1988, in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1988. As per impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the appellant-accused came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 read with Sec. 4 of the Police forces (Restrictions of Rights) Act, 1966 [police Forces Act] and also under Sec. 145 (2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The appellant-accused is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 read with sec. 4 of the Police Forces (Resriction of Rights) Act and he is also ordered to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week for the offence punishable under Sec. 145 (2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No. 120 of 1988, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Rural, on 30. 12. 1988, the accused has come up before this Court challenging its legality and validity under the provisions of Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Crpc for short ).

( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant-accused has contended that the conviction and sentence order passed against the accused by the trial Court is not only unjust, but it is perverse and illegal. In that, it has been submitted that the provisions of Sec. 3 of the police Forces Act, are not attracted. He has also, seriously, criticised the conviction for the offence under Sec. 145 (2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. He has taken this Court through the entire records of the case during course of the submissions. The aforesaid submissions are, seriously, countenanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. B. D. Desai while appearing for the respondent-State.

( 5 ) THE appellant who is original accused was working as Police Constable and was assigned duties, at Prahlad Gate Police Chowki, at Dholka, at the relevant time. According to the prosecution case, the incident occurred, on 27. 7. 1988 at about 7. 30 p. m. at Prahlad Police Chowki, at Dholka, in Ahmedabad District. The complainant Police constable one Narsinhbhai Vastabhai Makwana was on duty in the said Police Chowki as he was a member of Gram Sevak Dal and was performing duties as a police servant. At that time, the accused had rushed in the said Police Chowki with open knife and attempted to cause grievous hurt to the complainant. The accused had disconnected the telephone line of the said Police Chowki by cutting wire and had taken away telephone instrument alongwith him due to Police strike and agitation. According to the prosecution case, in pursuance to the strike call given by Police Association, there was a strike and police personnels had gone on strike and accused was also on strike.

( 6 ) THE accused had run away taking alongwith him the telephone instrument and the same came to be discovered by the accused later on during the course of investigation. The discovery panchnama was prepared by the Investigating Officer after calling two panchas as Muddamal knife and the telephone instrument could be recovered at the instance of the accused. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted.

( 7 ) LATER on, the