LexDALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
...
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
25
DALBIR SINGH AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF PUNJAB
(B. P. 'INHA, o. J., :K. SuBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPALA
AYYANGAR, ,J. R. MuDHOLKAR and
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.)
Police Force-Breach of discipline-Law providing for
penalty for such breach-Validity-Pepsu. Police (Incitement to
disaffection) Act, 1953 (Pepsu 1 of 1953), s. 3-Constitution of
India, Art. 19(1)(a), 19(2), 33.
Section 3 of the Pepsu Police (Incitement to disaffection)
Act,
1953,
provided:
''Whoever intentionally causes or
attempts to cause, or does, any act which- he knows is I_ikely
to cau~e, disaffectioh towards any Government estabhshed
by- law in India amongst the members of a police force, or
induces or attempts to induce, or does any act wh1ch he
knows is likely to induce, any member of a police force to
withhold his·services or to commit a breach of Jiscipline shall
be punishable with imprisonment .. ,.,,
After the administration of the State of Pepsu was taken
over by the Presiclent under Art. 356 of the Constitution o[
India, Parliament enacted a law by which the power of the
legislature of the State of Pepsu !was conferred on the Presi-
dent. By virtue of this power the President enacted the Pepsu
Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1953, the object of
which was to provide a penalty, inter alia, for spreading dis.
affection among the police. The appellants were charged with
having induced or attempted to induce members of the police
force tO withhold their services and thus to commit a breach
of discipline by staying away without doing their duty, and
thereby having committed an offence under s. 3 of the Act.
They were convicted by the Magistrate and the conviction
was confirmed by the High Court. The appellants challenged
. the validity of the conviction on the ground that s. 3 was
violative of the freedom guaranteed by Art.
19(l)(a) of the
Constitution and was not saved by Art. 19(2).
Held, thats. 3 of the· Pepsu Police (Incitement to dis-
affection) Act, 19j3, did not infringe Art. (19)(l)(a) of the
Constitution and was intra 1)ires.
The Police service is an arm of the State charged with
the duty of ensuring and maintaining public order and since
ilny breach of discipline on. the part of its members mi&hi
1952
February 6.
1962
Dalbir _ Singh
v.
7 A~ State oj Punjab
AJya11ga1 J.
..
26
SCPREME COURT REPORTS [1962) SUPP.
result in a 1hreat to puLiic order, s. 3 nnist he held to be valid
as having br.('n r:-naclrd "in the
intr.re~ts of
public order"
within the meaning of Art. 19(2).
l9upr:rintendent,
('fntral /lrison,
Frrll'.lu;arh
v.
Rr1111
Manohar Lohia, (1960) 2 S. C.R. 821, relied on.
Held, furrhrr, that Art. 33 of the Conc;titution \Vas not
applicable became Parliament had deh ga1ed the pow.rs of
the legislature of ti.<: State to tl.e President and any law
enacted by hiih \\·ould riot have the force of Parliamentary
legisla1ion contemplated by Art. 33.
Cnnni; AL A l'PJ:LLATE .J cn1s PICT!ON: Criminal
Appeal No. I 02 of 1960.
· Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order daterl October 7, 1959,- of the Punjab
High Court in Criminal Revision N:o. 610 of 1959.
Hardei.• Singh ancl Y. Knmar, for the appellants.
.
S. JJ. Sikri. Advocate.General for the Stat,e of
Punjrtb, S. S. Rindm and P. I>. Menon, for the
respondent.
1962. February 6.
The .Tmlgment of the
Court wa8 delirnr<~cl. by
AYL1-.<Hll, .f.--This app<'al hy special bavc
against th!l rleci•ion of tlw High Court of Punjab
raises for
considc~ation principally the
con~titu·
tional valirlitv of"· :~ <>f the Pepsu
P<llicc~ : Incite-
ment to dis11ffPction) Act. (Act, I nf Hl:>3 ), which
will be referre<I to hereafter ns thP imp:igned Acr ..
The four app.,llants were at one tiarn mem-
ber• of the Peps11 P.J!ice force anrl wer<'
chaq~ed,
before the First Cla's Ma!!istrnte at Faridkot., with
having committed three offunccs: (I) under s. :>6 of
tho Pepsu Public S;ifoty Orilinancc (Xo. 7 of Sam·
1·at 2006), (2) under s. 33 of tlte said Ordinance,
JLnd (3) under"· 3 of the impugned Act.
Wt• shall
he referring to th" provisinns of the r<·levant enact·
monts in due course.
The accused pleaded not
guilt.v and were tried by tho learned Magistrate who
by bis judgment dawd. August ~8, IU58, l)eld thl'
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
27
prosecution case fully established against all the
accused. He convicted the four appellants under
s. 26 of .the PubExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.