STATE OF PUNJAB versus CHARAN SINGH

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 20-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
.. 
J 
989 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
CHARAN SINGH 
February 20, 1981 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] 
Puniab Police Rules 1934- Rule 16.38-Scope of-Rule in the nature of 
d~partmental instruction-Cannot override Crin:inal Proced11te Code and Prt!-
vention of Corruption Act, 
The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 lay down the procedure to be 
followed 
in 
imposing punishn1ent on a police officer found guilty of mis-c.onduct or a crimi-
nal offence and make an exhaustive provision for departmental inquiries. Rule 
16.38 lays down the guidelines to be followed by the Superintendent of Police 
in dealing with a complaint about the commission of a criminal offence by a 
police olf1c~~r in connection with his official relations with the public. It enjoins 
upon the Superintendent to give immediate information to the District Magistrate 
who thereupon has to decide whether investigation of the complaint should be 
conducted by a police officer or by a Magistrate. 
The respondent, a police officer, was convicted of oo offence under section 
S(l)(d) rend with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sen-
tenced to JlUffer imprisonment. 
On the ground that there \Vas non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 
c 
D· 
16.38 of the Rules a single Judge of the High Court acquitted the respondent. 
E 
Setting aside the order of acquittal _and remanding the case to the High Court 
for fresh disposal in accordance with -law. 
HELD : The High Court was wrong in acquitting the respondent. [990 DJ 
Rule 16.38 is not designed to be a condition precedent to the launching of a 
prosecution in a Criminal Court. It is in the nature of instructions 
to the 
department and is not me311t to be of the nature of a sanction or permission 
for a prosecution; nor can it override the provisions of the Criminal Procedure 
Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. [991 A-BJ 
Hoshiar Singh v. The State LXVII-1965 Punjab Law Reporter 438 @ 442, 
approved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 
1976 . 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21-11-1973 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 396 /72. 
0. P. Sharma and M. S. Dhillon for the Appellant. 
K. K. M anchanda and B. Datta for the Respondent 
F 
G 
B 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The respondent was convicted by the 
learned Special Judge, Ludhian>a, of an offence under Sec. 5(1){d) 
read with Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sen-
tenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to 
B 
pay fine of Rs. one hundred. On appeal, a learned Single Judge of the 
High Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was non-
COID!Pliance with the provisions of Rule 
16.38 of the 
Punjab Police 
Rules, 1934. An application for the grant of a Certificate under Art. 
134(1) (c) of the Constitution was moved before the learned Single 
Judge and was granted. The learned Single Judge observed that when 
Cl 
the case was argued before him, an earlier judgment of a Division 
Bench of the Punjab High Court in Hoshiar Singh v. The State(') was 
not brought to bis notice and that had the decision been brought to his 
notice he would not have allowed the appeal merely on the ground that 
there was no compliance with Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules. 
D 
The learned Single Judge of the High Court was clearly wrong in 
acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was non-compliance 
with the provisions of Rule 16.38. A perusal of Chapter XVI of the 
Punjab Police Rules shows that the provisions of the Chapter deal with 
Departmental punishments and the procedure to be followed in impos-
ing such punishments. 
Guidance is given as to how Police Officers 
E 
guilty of misconduct and criminal offences may be dealt with. The 
Chapter begins with Rule 16.1, the first clause of which is as follows: 
F 
G 
B 
"No police officer shall be departmentally punished other-
wise than as provided in these rules". 
Thereafter the rules refer in some detail to the various punishments 
which may be imposed and provide for suspension, subsistence etc. 
Rule 16.24 makes exhaustive provision for the procedure in 
Depart-
mental enquiries. Provision for review and appeal is made in the sub-
sequent rules. 
Rule .16.38 prescribes---more correctly we may say-
Rnle 16.38 lays down the gnide-lines of the procedure to be followed 
when a Superintendent of Po

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.