LexTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS versus AJODHYA PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] that the mustard oil in the wagon which will be other- wise presumed to be stored for sale by the appellants, Ai /s. Madan Mohan Damma was not stored for sale. Mal Ltd. We are therefore of opinion that the conviction of & Another the appellants of the offence under s. 462 of the Act v. is correct. The appeal therefore stands dismissed. The State of West Bengal &- Another Raghubar Dayal ]. z960 November z 5. Appeal dismissed. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS v: AJODHYA PRASAD (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K. N. W ANCHOO and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Public Servant-Complaint of taking bribes against Police Officer-Magisterial enquiry into coinplaints-Departmental trial- Validity of-Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), s. 7-U. P. Police Regulations, paras. 486, 489. The respondent was posted as officer incharge of a police station when complaints were received by the District Magis- trate that the respondent was receiving bribes. The District Magistrate got an enquiry made by the Sub-Divisional Magis- trate and forwarded the report toghether with his own endorse- ment to the Superintendent of Police. The respondent was forced to go on 2 months leave and was reverted to his substan- tive post of Head Constable, but later he was promoted to the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector and posted at another police station. Meanwhile on further complaints an investigation was made and it was reported that the respondent was a habitual bribe taker. He was charged under s. 7 Police Act for g charges of bribery and after departmental trial was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police. He filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the order of dismissal inter alia on the ground that the offences charged being cognizable offences the Superin- tendent of Police had no jurisdiction to hold the departmental trial without first complying with the provisions of para. 486(1) of the U. P. Police Regulations. The High Court accepted this contention and quashed the order of dismissal. 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 673 Held (per Sarkar, Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ.) that the z960 subject matter of the magisterial enquiry and of. the depart- mental trial was substantially the same and that the depart- The State of Utlar mental trial was validly held. The fact that there was an inter- Pradesh & Others regnum between the magisterial enquiry and the departmental v. trial did not affect the questio.n. Paragraph 486 did not apply Ajodhya Prasad to a case where a magisterial enquiry was ordered and a police officer could be departmentally tried under s. 7 Police Act after such magisterial enquiry .. Per Gajendragadkar and Wanchoo, JJ.-Thc provisions of para. 486 were merely directory and even if there was non- compliance therewith the order of dismissal was not invalidated. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 270 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 23, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Civil Miscellaneous Application (0. J.) No. 86 of 1954. 0. B. Aggarwala, G. 0. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for the appellants. Achhru Ram, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondent. 1960. November, 25. The Judgment of Sarkar, Subba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ., was delivered by Subba Rao, J., and that of Gajendragadkar and Wan- choo, JJ., was delivered by Wanchoo, J. SUBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave Subba Rao f. against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowing the petition filed by the respondent under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts are in a small compass and may be briefly stated. Ip. the year 1933 the respondent was appoint- ed a constable in U. P. Police Force; on December 1, 1945, he was promoted to the rank of head constable and in May, 1952 he was posted as officer incharge of Police Station, Intiathok, District G:onda. Complaints were received by the District Magistrate, Gonda, to the effect that the respondent was receiving bribes in the discharge of his duties. On September 16, 1952, the District Magistrate, Gonda, directed the Sub-Divisio- nal Magistrate to make an enquiry in respect of the 674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961) I96o said complaints. On November 3, 1952, the Sub-Divi- --1 sional Magistrate, after making the neces
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.