THE STATE OF PUNJAB versus KHARAITI LAL.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 08-05-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS_ 
569 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
KHARAITI LAL. 
[JAGANNADHADAS and B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1947 (East 
Punjab AcO XIII of 1947 ), ss. 8, 5, 7-Complaint-Whether it 
should be authorised by the State Government-Police Act, 1861 (V of 
1861), ss. 22, 29-Absence from Police Lines-Neglect of duty-
Whether amounts to abandonment of employment or absence from work. 
Section 7(3) of the Ea.st Punjab Essential Services (Mainten· 
a.nee) Act, 194 7, provides that "no court shall take cognisance of any 
offence under this Act except upon complaint in writing ma.de by a 
person authorised in this behalf by the State Government". 
Held, that the law does not require that the particular com· 
plaint chould have been authorised by the State Government and it 
is sufficient if it has been filed by a person authorised by the State 
Government to do so. 
Neglect of duty as contemplated by s. 29 of the Police Act, 
1861, is quite different from abandoning an employment or absent· 
ing oneself from work without reasonable cause within the meaning 
of s. 5(b) of the East Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. 
The respondent, a constable, on account of physical infirmity 
was not assigned any "work" in the Police Lines within the mean· 
ing of cl. (b) of s. 5 of the Ea.st Punjab Essential Services (Ma.inten· 
ance) Act. He absented himself from the Police Lines without per· 
mission. Held, that his absence from Police Lines during the rele· 
vant time may have a.mounted to neglect of duty but he could not be 
convicted under s. 5(b). 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Ap'peal No. 140 of 1954. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated the 23rd July 1953 of the Punjab High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 487 of 1953 arising 
out of the judgment and order dated the 17th April 
1953 of the Court of Sessions Judge at Hoshiarpur in 
Criminal Appeal No. D/1 of 1953. 
N. S. Bindra and P. G. Gokhale, for the appellant. 
A. N. Chona and K. L. Mehta for the respondent. 
1956 
Moy& 
1956 
The State of 
Punjab 
v. 
Khaf'aiti Lal 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
1956. May 8. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
SINHA J.-This is an appeal by special leave from 
the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court of 
Judicature of. Punjab at Simla in Criminal Revision 
No. 487 of 1953 dated the 23rd July 1953 acquitting 
the respondent, a constable in the police force of the 
State of an offence under section 7 of the East Punjab 
Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, XIII of 1947 
(which hereinafter will be referred to as "the Act"), 
for which he had been convicted by a Magistrate of 
the First Class at Dharamsala by his judgment d'ated 
the 30th March 1953 and sentenced to 15 days' rigor-
ous imprisonment, which orders of conviction and 
sentence had been affirmed by the Sessions Judge of 
Hoshiarpur, Camp Dharanisala, by his judgment and 
order dated the 17th April 1953. 
The facts leading up to this appeal may shortly be 
stated. 
The respondent was prosecuted on a com-
plaint filed ,l>y the Superintendent of Police, Kangra 
District, in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Dharam-
sala, District Kangra, for an offence under section 7 
of the Act. 
The allegations against the respondent 
were that he joined the Police Department as a con-
stable in Jullundur District in 1947, that in Decem-
ber 1952 he was transferred from Jullundur District 
to Kangra District and posted to Police Lines, 
Kangra, as a constable on general duty at Seraj police 
station; that in January 1953 he came to Police Lines, 
Dharamsala for monthly training (refresher course), 
that on the 2nd February 1953 at the time of roll call 
at 7 p.m. the appellant was assigned the duty as 
sentry No. 1 without rifle behind the Police Lines 
Armoury, Dharamsala, from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. 
The 
respondent, though informed of the assignment of 
the aforesaid duty to him, refused to obey that order 
or to perform any other duty in the Lines. 
There-
. upon his name was struck off from the Duty Roster 
and another foot constable was duly placed in that 
post of duty. On the night between the 2nd and 3rd 
February 1953 at 11-30 p.m. a surprise roll call of the 
employees of the Police Lines was duly made by means 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
571 
of an alarm sounded with a bugle which was blown 
continuously for about 15 minutes. The respondent 
was found absent on such a rol

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