Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
D.S.Tewatia, J.
Jarnail Singh
Versus
Union Territory Of Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No. 32-M of 1970,
Decided On : JULY 27, 1970
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Sections 497, 498, 561-A - ESSENTIAL SERVICES (MAINTENANCE) ACT, 1947 - Sections 7(3), 7(4) - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - Section 3(58) - DELHI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT ACT, 1946 - Section 6 - UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH - Applicability of Essential Services Act - Authorisation for complaint under Section 7(3) - Interpretation of State in Section 3(58) of General Clauses Act - Extension of powers of police force to Union Territory - Lodging of FIR as complaint - Cognizance of offence under Section 190 of Criminal Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Punjab Armed Police officer on deputation to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, filed an application under Sections 497 and 498 read with Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, alleging that he had resigned from service and that a case under Section 7 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1947 (Essential Services Act) had been registered against him. He apprehended arrest and sought bail and quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Essential Services Act was applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh by virtue of Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and that the two-year limitation period in Section 89 of the Reorganisation Act applied only to the authority of the appropriate Government to adapt or modify the law by an executive order, not to the application of the law itself. The court also held that the Union Territory of Chandigarh was a State as defined in Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that the FIR lodged by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, did not constitute a complaint under Section 7(3) of the Essential Services Act, as the stage for the Court to take cognizance of an offence had not yet been reached.
Issues: 1. Whether the Essential Services Act was applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 2. Whether the two-year limitation period in Section 89 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, applied to the application of the Essential Services Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 3. Whether the Union Territory of Chandigarh was a State as defined in Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 4. Whether the FIR lodged by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, constituted a complaint under Section 7(3) of the Essential Services Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, enabled all laws in force immediately before the appointed day (1-11-1966) in the erstwhile State of Punjab to continue to remain in force after the appointed day in the whole of the territory, including the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 2. Section 89 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which provided for adaptations and modifications of laws by the appropriate Government within two years from the appointed day, did not limit the application of the existing laws to the territories of the erstwhile State of Punjab, but only limited the authority of the appropriate Government to adapt or modify the laws by an executive order. 3. The definition of State in Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, included Union Territories, and therefore the Union Territory of Chandigarh was a State for the purposes of the Essential Services Act. 4. The lodging of an FIR by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, did not constitute a complaint under Section 7(3) of the Essential Services Act, as the stage for the Court to take cognizance of an offence had not yet been reached.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for bail and quashing of the FIR, holding that the Essential Services Act was applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, that the two-year limitation period in Section 89 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, did not apply to the application of the Essential Services Act to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, that the Union Territory of Chandigarh was a State as defined in Section 3(58) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that the FIR lodged by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, did not constitute a complaint under Section 7(3) of the Essential Services Act.
1. This application is filed by the petitioner under Sections 497 and 498, read with Sec.561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that he joined the Punjab Armed Police on 12-10-1962 and was in employment of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on deputation since the year 1968, that he proceeded on eight days leave commencing from 5-3-1969 which was further extended by ten days on his request; that therefore he sent in his resignation from service, and that since he had heard nothing from his department he presumed that his resignation had been accepted. The petitioner is further alleged to have learnt before the filing of the present application that a case under Sec.7 of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1947 (Act 13 of 1947) hereinafter referred to as the Essential Services Act, had been registered on a complaint filed by Inspector Kuldip Singh, respondent No.2. It is also alleged by the petitioner that he apprehended his arrest as a result of warrant of arrest having been issued against him.
2. In the return filed on behalf of respondent Union Territory of Chandigarh the contents of paras 1 and 2 of the application of the petitioner have not been denied. The respondent also admitted in para 3 of its return that eight days leave was granted to the petitioner and a telegram for the extension of leave by ten days on the ground of illness was also received. However the respondent has further pleaded that the request of extension was not supported by any medical certificate and therefore, leave could not be extended. It is further stated by this respondent that an effort to inform the petitioner about his leave not being extended was made through the Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, but he was reported to be not available at his home address. However, on 28-4-1969, Sardara Singh, brother of the petitioner, undertook to inform the petitioner about the same. It is also pleaded by the respondent that even after the expiry of ten days the petitioner did not join the service and that no resignation letter was received by either respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2. The respondent in its return admitted that a case under Sec.7 of the Essential Services Act has been registered, vide FIR No.694, dated 28-8-1969, in Police Station Central, Chandigarh, but it has been denied that any warrant for the arrest of the petitioner had been issued. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 have justified the action taken by them, and it has been stated that the action is in accordance with the law and is legally valid.
3. The first point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Essential Services Act cannot be considered to be in force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary has maintained that by virtue of Sec.88 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966 (Act 31 of 1966), hereinafter called the Reorganisation Act, all the laws in force immediately before the appointed day i. e; 1-11-1966 in the erstwhile State of Punjab shall continue to remain in force after the appointed day in the whole of the territory whether after the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab that fell within the present States of Punjab or Haryana or that of the Union Territory of Chandigarh or other transferred territories. Sec.88 of the Reorganisation Act reads as follows-"88. The provisions of Part II shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law to the State of Punjab shall until otherwise provided by a competent Legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the appointed day. "
4. A bare perusal of the provisions of Sec.88 of the Reorganisation Act, reproduced above, makes it clear that every law in force immediately before the appointed day sh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
