STATE OF PUNJAB versus RAJ KUMAR

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 11-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
RAJ KUMAR 
FEBRUARY 11, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 framed under the Police Act 186 !-
Rule 16.38-Jnterpretation of-Whether Mandatory or directory in 
nature-Scope of-Whether applicable to departmental inquiries alone 
or would govern criminal proceedings also under J.P. C. and other acts. 
Held-Applicable to departmental inquiries only. 
r. 
t 
I .. 
c 
The respondent was apprehended while taking bribe. Investiga-~, 
tioil was held and the respondent was chargesheeted before the Special 
Judge, The respondent raised an objection to the framing of charges 
against him on the ground that the investigation of the case was in 
D contravention of rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules. The Special 
· Judge overruled the objection and framed charges and posted the case 
for trial. The respondent filed a petition before the High Court under 
section 56l(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for quashing 
the proceedings against him before the Special Judge. A full bench of 
the High Court held that rule 16.38 is mandatory and not directory in 
E 
character and that the mandate would govern criminal prosecution as 
F 
well as departmental inquiries in equal measure. The full bench having 
noticed that the investigation against the respondent had not been done 
in accordance with rule 16.38 allowed the petition and quashed the 
charges framed against the respondent. Hence this appeal filed by 
certificate issued by the High Court. 
r 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court's judgmeni I" 
this Court, 
_> 
HELD: The procedure prescribed in rule 16.38 has only a limited 
field of operation that is applicable only to departmental inquiries and 
G punishments. This could be seen from the fact that clause 3 of the rule 
enjoins every Magistrate to whom a complaint against a police officer is 
referred by the District Magistrate for judicial enquiry to report the 
details of the case to the District Magistrate in order to enable the 
District Magistrate to forward the report to the Superintendent of 
Police. The clause further says that if the District Magistrate himself 
H takes cognizance of a case he should of his own accord send a report to 
936 
y 
... 
-
• 
"' .. 1 
\ 
-
> 
• 
y 
STATE OF PUNJAB v. RAJ KUMAR 
937 
the Superintendent of Police. Clause IV of rule 16.38 also throws light 
on the matter and hriugs out the objective iu greater clarity. This clause 
sets out that in order to protect the interest of police officers serving in 
districts where petition mongering activities are notorious, the District 
Magistrate can direct that all petitions complaining about police officers 
shall be presented to him personally so that he can scrutinize them to 
find out whether the petitions are of a frivolous nature or Ibey have been 
engineered by factious groups in the districts etc. In fact, the words used 
in the clause are of a tell-tale nature viz. "complaints against police 
officers in those districts where abuses of law with the object of victimis-
ing such officers or hampering investigation is rife." [945F-H; 946A-B] 
The purpose underlying the rule is to enable the District Magis-
trate and the District Superintendent of Police to exercise personal 
control and supervision over the complaints received against members of 
the police force in the performance of their duties and enable the Dis-
trict Magistrate to ensure that the complaint is not a baseless or mala 
lide one and secondly to determine whether the complaint requires 
investigation by a police officer or by a selected Magistrate. The proce-
dure envisaged by the rule is for effective check being exercised against 
victimisation of efficient and honest police officers on the one hand and 
favouritism being shown to the delinquent police officers on the other. 
These rules were not intended to replace and certainly cannot over-ride 
the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. [946C-E] 
In the instant case the Full Bench was in error in taking the view 
that the Punjab Police Rules read in conjunction with the Police Act 
prescribe a different procedure for the investigation and prosecution of 
offences committed by Police Officer under the I.P.C. or other Acts in 
connection with their relations with the public and that the rules consti-
tute a special statute and take precedence over the provisions of the Cr. 
P.C. The Full Bench has failed to note that Rule 16.38 only mand

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