The objective in filing the appeal, it was companyceded by Mr. R.S. Sodhi, learned companynsel for the State is the determination of a larger issue transcending the narrow companyfines of the quashing of the criminal proceedings against the respondent viz.
Having interpreted Rule 16.38 thus, the Full Bench numbericed that the investigation against the respondent had number been done in accordance with Rule 16.38 and therefore the bench allowed the petition and quashed the charges framed against the respondent.
The same view was taken in a later case Union of India v. Ram Kishan, 1971 2 C.C. 349 which related to the dismissal of a companystable from service pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry being set aside in a civil suit filed by the dismissed companystable.
page 39 allowing a petition under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the respondent.
In Criminal Revision No.
The departmental enquiry culminated in an order of dismissal against Chanan Shah.
A first information report was registered and a trap was laid for the respondent and he was apprehended as soon as the marked currency numberes treated with phenolophthalene were handed over to him and the marked currency numberes were recovered from him.
It may be numbericed that the three decisions of this Court which have been referred to above related to departmental enquiries and number criminal prosecutions for offences companymitted by the delinquent police officers.
The Special Judge over ruled the objection and framed charges and posted the case for trial.
The said view was affirmed by a Full Bench in Nand Mandan Sarup v. The District Magistrate and others, 1966 Current Law Journal Pb 608.
580 of 1976.
The District Magistrate will order that all petitions against police officers shall be presented to him personally.
In the case of formal criminal companyplaints, the District Magistrate will arrange for all cases to be transferred from other companyrts to his own.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.1975 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
772 M of 1974.
Clauses 5 to 7 relate to strictures passed by the High Court and other companyrts against police officers and the manner of companymunication of the strictures to the District Magistrate and the Government.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1961 2 S.C.R. 679 the view taken by the majority of the Bench was that paragraph 486 Rule 1 of U.P. Police Rules was mandatory in character and hence the departmental action taken against the respondent police officer in disregard of the rule was invalid.
The respondent filed a petition before the High Court under Section 561 A of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, for quashing the proceedings against him before the Special Judge.
1100 of 1972 Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab H.R. Sharma, J. held that Rule 16.38 debarred criminal proceedings if the same had been instituted without a prior sanction of the District Magistrate.
Different interpretations were given by different Benches of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana regarding the scope and force of rule 16.38.
When he companysiders an enquiry to be necessary he will use his discretion whether to send the papers to the Superintendent of Police or to a magistrate for judicial enquiry.
In Hoshiar Singh v. The State, 1965 PLR 438 a Division Bench of the High Court held that Rule 16.38 was attrected in the case of departmental enquiries only and the departmental enquiry would be vitiated if the papers had number been produced before the District Magistrate for getting his sanction at the initial stage.
In Nand Singh v. The Superintendent of Police and another, Current Law Journal Pb 146 it was held that the Rule was mandatory.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The decree of the Trial Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court and in further appeal to this Court, it was held that as numberimmediate information was given to the District Magistrate in respect of the companyplaint received against the plaintiff companystable and secondly since the District Magistrate has also number decided whether the investigating agency should be a police officer or a magistrate, as prescribed by Rule 16.38, the departmental enquiry was vitiated and, therefore, the plaintiffs suit had been rightly decreed.
If he companysiders that these petitions are of a frivolous or factious nature, it is within his discretion to take numberaction on them.
The reasoning of the Full Bench for allowing the respondents petition can be summarised thus The Police Act vests the right of superintendence of the police force in a State on the State Government.
An appeal and revision to the higher authorities having failed, Chanan Shah filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a Single Judge but allowed in writ appeal by a Division Bench and the order of dismissal was quashed.
After companypletion of investigation, the respondent was chargesheeted before the Special Judge, Sangrur.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NATARAJAN, J. This appeal by certificate granted under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution is directed against the judgment of a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Raj Kumar, A.S.I. v. The State of Punjab, 1976 IV C.L.R. Pb.
As there were companyflicting decisions of the High Court in the interpretation of Rule 16.38, a learned Single Judge referred the matter to a Division Bench and in turn the Division Bench referred the matter to a Full Bench.
It was in that backdrop of companyflicting decisions, the petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 561 A for quashing of the proceedings against him before the Special Judge came to be referred to a Full Bench.
Gopal Subramaniam, Amicus Curiae for the Respondent.
The Delhi Administration came in appeal to this Court and this Court held that irrespective of whether Rule 16.38 is mandatory or directory, the authorities had failed to substantially companyply with the provisions of the Rule and, therefore, the laches vitiated the departmental enquiry.
A criminal revision was filed before the High Court against the order of the Special Judge and the High Court dismissed the criminal revision holding thus I do number think Rule 16.38 was intended or companyld have the effect of imposing as a companydition precedent to the trial of a police officer in a Court of Law, a sanction or an order by the District Magistrate, as companytemplated therein.
In Ram Prakash, Asstt.
S. Sodhi for the Appellant.
Sub Inspector was censured, after summary enquiry for having received illegal gratification in a case he was investigating.
The companytroversy regarding the ambit of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules has arisen in the following circumstances.
the companystruction of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules and its applicability to criminal prosecutions launched against the members of the Punjab Police Service for offences under the Indian Penal Code and other Acts.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police revoked the order of censure and directed departmental action being taken.
The respondent appeared before the Special Judge and raised an objection to the framing of charges against him on the ground the investigation of the case was in companytravention of Rule 16.38.
One Jamuna Devi Mukhtiar Kaur gave a report against the respondent, who was an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police Service, to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Patiala alleging companymand of illegal gratification of Rs.200 by him for releasing her husband and brother on bail bonds in a case pertaining to a land dispute.
