Amrik Singh vs The State

J.S. Bedi, J.—This revision has arisen from the following facts. Amrik Singh petitioner was employed as Foot Constable in the Police Department and was posted at Mulepur Police Station. He was found to be absent on roll call at 8-15 A.M. on the 22nd May, 1966, and remained away till the 27th of that month. A case u/s 380 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against him during those days at the instance of one Bhupinder Singh. As a result of the above, the petitioner was prosecuted u/s 7 of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. The charge against him was that while employed as Police Constable at Mulepur Police Station he absented himself Irom duty after 8.15 A.M. on the 22nd till the 27th May, 1966. The trial was held by Shri Sarup Chand Gupta, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bassi, who found the charge proved against him, convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to one month''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of fifty rupees or in default fifteen days'' rigorous imprisonment vide his order dated the 26th April, 1967. The petitioner felt aggrieved and approached the Court of Session against his conviction. The appeal came up before Shri Udham Singh, Sessions Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the same vide his order dated the 27th May, 1967. He, however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court and enhanced the fine to one hundred rupees. The petitioner still feels dissatisfied and has come up to this Court in revision.

Section 5 of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1947, the provisions of which the petitioner is alleged to have contravened, runs as under:

Any person engaged in any employment or class of employment to which this Act applies who-

(a) disobeys any lawful order given to him in the course of such employment, or

(b) without reasonable excuse abandons such employment or absents himself from work, or

(c) departs from any areas specified in an order under subjection (1) of section 4 without the consent of the authority making the order.

* * *

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that clause (b) of section 5 was said to apply to the case of the petitioner. He submitted that clause (b) was formed of two parts: (a) Without reasonable excuse abandons such employment or (b) absents himself from work. Ha maintained that the petitioner was not allotted any particular duty and, therefore, it could not be said that he abandoned such duty or employment although he remained absent from the Police Lines from the 22nd to the 27th May, 1966. Regarding the second part, he relied on The The State of Punjab Vs. Kharaiti Lal, and maintained that the facts in that case and in the case before me were almost similar. He submitted further that even the second part of clause (b) of section 5 of the Act did not cover the case of the petitioner for the reason that he remained away from the Police Lines from the 22nd to the 27th May, 1966, yet he was not given any duty during or before those days and, therefore, the provisions of clause (b) of section 5 would not be attracted on the facts of this case before me.

The Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the facts in the case before me and the one before the Supreme Court were somewhat different because in the case before the Supreme Court the respondent was ailing and, therefore, he was not expected to do any duty in those days. It is true that the facts are not quite similar but the principle in the case before the Supreme Court and the one before me is the same. It was laid down by the Supreme Court that neglect of duty as contemplated by section 29 of the Police Act was quite different from abandoning an employment or absenting oneself from work without reasonable cause which was the particular offence contemplated by clause (b) of section 5 of the East Punjab Essential Service (Maintenance) Act. The State counsel submitted that u/s 22 of the Police Act (Act No. 5 of 1861) every police officer is considered to be always on duty. That is so, but the petitioner could have been convicted u/s 29 of the Police Act and not u/s 7 of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act.

For the reasons given above, the revision of the petitioner is accepted and he is acquitted. The fine if paid may be refunded, to him.