32 praying 1 for a writ in the nature of certiorari calling Upon the Government of Hyderabad and the Special Judge to produce the records of the case and to show cause why the companyvictions and sentences should number be quashed and 2 for a writ of prohibition directing the Government and the Special Judge number to execute the petitioners.
311 2 of the Constitution but was governed by the Police Act, 1861 Act V of 1861 and the Regulations made thereunder by the State Government.
The letter having been placed before the Inspector General of Police, Lucknow,he declared it to be a forgery.
That Shri B. N. Bhalla had his own testimony recorded in the case is number denied.
In this case admittedly the respondent preferred an appeal and then went up to the Inspector General of Police in revision.
One Head Constable, Mohammad Khalil, who was prosecution witness in the case, when cross examined denied to have said that the applicant and Shariful Hasan were on friendly terms.
He found the respondent guilty and on April 20, 1948 passed an order of dismissal against him.
The respondent then filed a revision application to the Inspector General of Police under Reg.
It was after the companymencement of the Constitution that the petitioners applied to this Court under Art.
Accordingly, under s. 7 of the Police Act read with Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, a departmental enquiry, called a trial in the Regulations, was started against the respondent.
226, to deal with the order of dismissal which had been passed at a time when the Constitution of India had number companye into force, but the High Court rejected that plea as it took the view that the order of dismissal passed by the District Superin tendent of Police on December 20, 1948, and the order of dismissal of the appeal passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on June 7,1949, had number become final until the Inspector General of Police, on April 22, 1950, made his order dismissing the revision application filed by the respondent under Reg.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 10th March, 1952, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ No.
That appeal was dismissed on June 7, 1949.
According ly Shri B. N. Bhalla had his testimony recorded by a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Having exhausted all his remedies under the Police Act read with the Regulations thereunder the respondent on February 24, 1951, filed a writ petition under Art.
But while giving his evidence at the departmental trial the said Mohammad Khalil denied having made any such statement.
The respondent was a companystable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Force and was, at the material time, officiating as a Head Constable and posted in the District of Fatenpur.
Subsequently the petition was amended, with the leave of the companyrt, by adding prayer 3 for a writ of habeas companypus.
On March 15, 1948 the respondent was placed under suspen sion.
The argument is that the Police Act and the Regulations made thereunder having provided for an appeal and a revision and having set up special forums with full powers and jurisdiction to companyrect the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction, procedure and the merits companymitted by the officer presiding over the trial, such forums alone are companypetent to companyrect all such errors, irregularities and illegalities.
The respondent knew the material facts and must be deemed to have been companyscious of his legal rights in the matter and, therefore, if he failed to raise the objection before the officer who was dealing with his appeal or revision he cannot, it is urged, be permitted to do so for the first time on a writ petition under Art.
A number of points were raised before this Court.
As the letter was ostensibly for the benefit of the respond ent, it was naturally suspected that it must have been sent by or at his instance.
Their Convictions and sentences had been Confirmed by the Hyderabad High Court before January 26, 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force.
The judgment of the High Court also directed that, if it were desired to proceed against the respondent, the trial should be presided over by a person other than the District Superintendent of Police who gave evidence in the case and also passed the order of dismissal against the respondent and that it should be in strict companyformity with the relevant Police Regulations.
The appellant State on February 4, 1955, obtained from the High Court a certificate of fitness under Arts.
One Shri B. N. Bhalla, the then District Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, was deputed to hold the trial.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In that case the petitioners were companyvicted by a special Tribunal of Hyderabad of murder and other offenses and sentenced to death by hanging.
132 1 and 133 1 c and hence the present appeal to this Court.
130 of 1956.
Writ No.
Under s. 243 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which was then in force, the respondent, who was in the police force, was number governed by sub s. 3 of s. 240 which companyresponds to art.
7376 of 1951 quashing the depart mental proceedings against the respondent and the orders passed therein, namely, the order for his dismissal passed by the District Superintendent of Police on December 21, 1948, the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police passed on June 7, 1949, dismissing his appeal against the order of his dismissal and the order of the Inspector General of Police dated April 22,1950 rejecting his application for revision.
In the appeal and in the revision the respondent either took the plea of the breach of the rules of natural justice and fair play number companyplained of or he did number.
P. Sinha and S. D. Sekhri, for the respondent.
DAS C. J. This is an appeal filed under a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Arts.
C. Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
was delivered by Das C. J. Bose J. delivered a separate judgement.
He, however, failed in the Hindi test and was number selected and sixty other candidates were selected for the training.
Having pitted his evidence against that of Mohammad Khalil Shri B. N. Bhalla vacated the Judges seat and entered the arena as a witness.
737 of 1951.
The respondent went up on appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police under Reg.
The judgment of Das C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, Jafer Imam and Sarkar JJ.
It is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the said High Court pronounced on March 10, 1952, in Civil Misc.
The respondents grievance is that Shri B. N. Bhalla, who had thus become a witness in the case, ought number to have further companytinued to act as the presiding officer and that his companytinuing to do so vitiated the trial and his order was a nullity.
512 companyfers on an officer whose appeal has been rejected to submit an application for revision to the authority next in rank above that by which his appeal has been rejected.
September 30.
132 1 and 133 1 c of the Constitution.
In the circumstances it became necessary to companytradict him by the testimony of Shri N. Bhalla in whose presence that witness had, on a previous occasion, stated that Shari ful Hasan was very friendly with the respondent.
The respondent was sent up for selection from the District of Fatehpur.
On December 8, 1947 a letter, purporting to have been issued from Lucknow, was received in the U. P. Police Head Office at Allahabad intimating that the respondent had been select ed for training at the Police Training College.
In Decem ber, 1947, sixty candidates had to be selected from the Police Force for training at tile Police Training College, Moradabad.
That application was also dismissed on April 22, 1950.
As there were only sixty vacancies and as sixty candidates had al ready been selected, the Head Office people were led to make enquiries as to how this letter came to be issued from Lucknow.
This was done at two stages, namely, once before the charges were framed and again after the framing of the charges.
Indeed the appellant State, in opposition to the respondents writ application, filed an affidavit affirmed by Shri B. N. Bhalla, paragraph 8 of which runs as follows That the deponent gave his first statement on 13th October, 1948, which was recorded by Shri Mohammad Sadiq, Deputy Superintendent of Police before the charge and the second statement on 25th October, 1948, which was recorded by another Deputy Superintendent of Police after the charge.
