http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHARAN SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1981

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) ISLAM, BAHARUL (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1007            1981 SCR  (2) 989  1981 SCC  (2) 197        1981 SCALE  (1)399  CITATOR INFO :  F          1988 SC 805  (4,9,14,15)  APL        1989 SC 558  (14)  R          1989 SC 811  (8)

ACT:      Punjab Police  Rules 1934-Rule  16.38-Scope of-Rule  in the  nature   of  departmental  instruction-Cannot  override Criminal Procedure Code and Prevention of Corruption Act.

HEADNOTE:      The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 lay down the procedure to be followed  in imposing  punishment on police officer found guilty of  mis-conduct or  a criminal  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 officer 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 an offence under  section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention  of   Corruption  Act  and  sentenced  to  suffer imprisonment.      On the  ground that  there was  non-compliance with the provisions of  Rule 16.38 of the Rules a single Judge of the High Court acquitted the respondent.      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 D]      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 meant 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-B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Hoshiar Singh  v. The  State LXVII-1965  Punjab Law Reporter 438 @ 442, approved.

JUDGMENT:      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.      O.P. Sharma and M.S. Dhillon for the Appellant.      K.K. Manchanda and B. Datta for the Respondent. 990      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The respondent was convicted by the learned Special  Judge, Ludhiana,  of an  offence under Sec. 5(1)(d) read  with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and  sentenced to  suffer rigorous  imprisonment  for  a period of  one year  and to  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 noncompliance 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 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 his 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.      The learned  Single Judge of the High Court was clearly wrong in  acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was noncompliance  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  imposing such  punishments.  Guidance  is  given  as  to  how  Police Officers 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:           "No  police   officer  shall   be   departmentally      punished other wise than as provided id 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-Rule 16.38 lays down the  guide-lines of the procedure to be followed when a Superintendent of  Police receives  any complaint  about the commission of  a criminal  offence by  a police  officer "in connection with his official relations with the public". The Superintendent of  Police  is  enjoined  to  give  immediate information to  the District  Magistrate who is thereupon to decide whether  the investigation  of the complaint shall be conducted by  a Police  Officer or  by a  Magistrate. It  is stated that  though ’a  judicial prosecution  shall normally follow’, the matter may be disposed of departmentally if the District Magistrate so orders, 991 for  reasons   to  be  recorded.  The  further  Departmental procedure is  prescribed by  the remaining  clauses.  It  is clear that  Rule 16.38  is not  designed to  be a  condition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

precedent to  the launching  of a  prosecution in a Criminal Court; it is in the nature of instructions to the Department and is  not meant  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. We agree with the observations of Dua and Mahajan JJ. in Hoshiar Singh v. The State (supra) where they said:           "...... I  do not think Rule 16.38 was intended or      could have  the  effect  of  imposing  as  a  condition      precedent to  the trial  of a police officer in a Court      of  law,  a  sanction  or  an  order  by  the  District      Magistrate,  as   contemplated  therein.  The  language      appears to  me to  be confined  only to  depart  mental      enquiries. The  investigation for  establishing a prima      facie case  is  merely  meant  to  guide  the  District      Magistrate,  uncontrolled   by  the   opinion  of   the      Superintendent of Police, whether or not a departmental      proceeding  should  be  initiated  against  the  guilty      party, and  it is  the  procedure  and  the  punishment      controlling the  departmental proceedings  alone, which      appear to have been prescribed by this rule". We have,  therefore, no option but to set aside the order of acquittal passed  by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is so ordered. P.B.R.                                       Appeal allowed. 1