A PERSON CHARGED WITH AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE POLICE ACT, 1861, HAS A RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING, WHICH INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In March 1951 the petitioner was the station Officer, P. S. Neoria in the district of Pilibhit. On 1-6-1951, the dead body of a newly born child was found; the petitioner made an investigation, and on 9th June he instituted proceedings under Section 318, Penal Code against one Srimati Hulaso. On the 6th July he was transferred to police station Kotwali in the city of Pilibhit. On the 13th July he was placed under suspension, and proceedings were taken against him under Section 7, Police Act on the allegation that he had extorted money from Sri Pitam Lodh, the father-in-law of Srimati Hulaso, by wrongfully confining him and two other persons on the 2nd and 3rd June. The enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police of Pilibhit, the second respondent, who recommended the petitioners dismissal from the police force. In September, 1951, the petitioner was called upon by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, northern Range, to show cause why he should not be dismissed and he was furnished with a copy of the findings of the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the Deputy Inspector General but the latter, by an order dated 12-10-1951, dismissed him from service. An appeal by the petitioner to the Inspector General of Police was rejected on 4-6-1952. The petitioner now prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Deputy inspector General and of the Inspector General on the ground that the enquiry under Section 7, police Act was conducted in such a manner as to deprive him of an adequate opportunity of defending himself.

( 2 ) THE case is one of some difficulty. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of either of the respondents and the facts set out in the petitioners affidavit must accordingly be accepted as correct.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to that affidavit, the petitioner was informed at about 4 P. M. on the 13th July that he was urgently required by the second respondent. The petitioner went at once to the superintendents bungalow which he reached between 4 and 5 P. M. , and on arrival he was served with the following order dated the preceding day, the 12th July: please submit your written explanation immediately why proceedings should not be initiated against you for having extorted money from Pital Lodh, resident of village Kalika, P. S. Neoria, in the case under Section 318, I. P. C. of village Kalia by wrongfully confining Pitam Lodh, his wife Punia and his son Beni on 2-6 -. 51 and 3-6-51, You must bring this explanation with you when you report to me as ordered separately in an order sent to you through S. C. , Kotwali. The petitioner immediately wrote out and submitted an "explanation" in which he simply denied that he had extorted any money from Pitam or any one else or had confined anybody wrongfully. As soon as this explanation was handed to the second respondent the latter passed an order suspending the petitioner and informed him that proceedings under Section 7, Police Act would be started then and there against him.

( 4 ) IT appears that seventeen witnesses in sup-port of the allegations made against the petitioner were then at the Superintendents bungalow and their statements had previously been recorded by another police officer. According to the statement of the petitioner - which, as I have said, has not been contradicted - the proceedings started by the substance of his deposition, which had been recorded in English, being translated to each witness who was then asked to sign an endorsement on the record of his statement that it had been read over to him and admitted to be correct. Immediately after the summary of his statement had been read to the witness the petitioner was called upon to cross-examine him. He began to cross-examine the first witness, but objection was taken by the second respondent, who was presiding over the enquiry, to the questions which he put on t