Chhangani, J.—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 refreshers 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

chdkusj iqfyl ds deZpkfj;ksa dh Hka;dj iqdkj dk ?kks"k.kk i=^^

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 necessa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document