P L D 1954 Lahore 402 (PLP)

M. A. SOOFI, J.‑This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 687, 688 and 689 of 1951. The respondents in these three appeals preferred, by Crown against the order of acquittal, are Fida Hussain, Fazal Dad and Muhammad Rafiq, Foot Constables of Gujrat District. Fida Hussain and Muhammad Rafiq were already attached to the Police Lines. Fazal Dad was attached to Dinga Police Station. All the three of them were suspended under the order of the District Superintendent of Police, Gujrat, on the 27th of February 1951, and were asked to report at the Police Lines as they had been named as accused persons in a robbery case. Fazal Dad was informed of his suspension at Dinga at 8 a.m. on the 28th‑ of February 1951. He was ordered to report himself at the Police Lines, Gujrat, forthwith. He, however, turned up there on the 1st of March 1951, at, 6 p.m. , Fida Hussain absented himself from the Police Lines from the 28th of February 1951, at 4‑15 p.m. to the 1st of March 1951, at 12‑30 p.m. Muhammad Rafiq absented himself from the Police Lines from the 28th of February 1951, at 4‑15 p.m. to the 1st of March 1951, at 8‑15 p.m. All the three respondents again absented themselves from the Police Lines from the 13th of March 1951 and cases under section 29 of the Police Act were registered against them on the 24th of March 1951, when they were still absent. The respondents at their trial admitted their absence from the 13th of March 1951, till the 24th of March 1951, but they stated that they had been allowed bail by a Court on the 13th of March 1951, when they were produced before it on the charge under section 392, P. P. C. Their sureties, in order to exercise control over them, kept them with them selves, hence they could not attend at the Police Lines during those days. As regards the first incident Fida Hussain denied the accusation, while Fazal Dad stated that on the 27th of Feb ruary 1951, he had come to Gujrat on an official business. He returned to Dinga by 10 a.m. train. He learnt of his suspension on the following morning. He spent .the day in making his accounts and arranging his luggage etc. He alleged that he arrived at Gujrat by a night train. On the following morning he learnt that a criminal case had been brought against him and hence he made a bail application and thus he was able to make his arrival report at the Police Lines on the 1st of March 1951, at 6 p.m. Muhammad Rafiq like Fida Hussain denied the accusation in respect of his absence from the 28th of February at 4‑15 p.m, to the 1st of March 1951, at 8‑15 p.m. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, being of the view that the order of detention in the Police Lines for an indefinite period though purporting to be under Rule 16.21 was ulna vires of section 7 of the Police Act and its disobedience did not attract the penal provisions of section 23 of the said Act. He relied on A I R 1932 Cal.

285. On behalf of the Crown it has been argued that under Rule 16.21 of the Police Rules a police officer even on sus pension remains a police officer and is subject to discipline and shall ordinarily be confined to Police Lines when off duty, but shall be allowed reasonable facilities for the preparation of his defence as prescribed in Rule 16.21. Under section 22 of tile Police Act, 1861, a police officer shall be considered to be always on duty and may at any time be employed as a police officer in any part of the general police‑district. Under section 23 of the Act, it is the duty of every police officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority. Under Rule 16.17 of the Punjab Police Rules, any police officer above the rank of head constable may suspend, pending inquiry or investigation, any enrolled police officer junior to him in rank, who is guilty or is reasonably suspected of misconduct. Under Rule 16.18, a police officer whose conduct is under departmental enquiry shall ordinarily be placed under suspension, when it appears likely that a charge will be framed which would render him liable to reduction or dismissal, or when the nature of the accusations against him is such, that his remaining on duty is prejudicial to the public interest. The Prosecuting Inspector was con sequently a competent authority to suspend the respon dents, if for the sake of argument it be assumed that he made the orders on his own and not under the direction of the Superintendent of Police, under these rules. It has further been argued that the nature of duty of a police officer is such that his residence should be known to his colleagues and superior officers. Even while he is attached to a police station it is within the competence of his superior officers to nominate his residence and while going out from the police station or while returning to the police station he has to make entries in the Police Register No. 12 i.e. the daily diary. It is in the fitness of things that a police officer under suspension should also be under similar if not stricter discipline at the Police Lines. Hence rule 16.21 is not ultra wires of sections 7 and 12 of the Police Act. Confinement to the Police Lines is not punishment though confinement to the quarters is. In the present case suspension of the police constables was preparatory to inquiry and was not in the nature of punishment, nor was their confinement to the Police Lines a punishment., It has further been argued that the rule in Ramgopal Adhikari v. Emperor (58 Cal. 1132.) was wrongly applied by the learned Magistrate, while the law applicable to the case is correctly laid down in Emperor v. Muhammad Fazal‑e‑Bari (46 Cr. L J 1945.). It has been argued or, behalf of the respondents that the order of confinement to the Police Lines was not lawful and hence its disobedience, diet not amount to any offence. A reference was made td Muhammad Ali v. Emperor (A I R 1928 Lah. 164,) but that case is not in point at all, That was a case of neg ligence of duty resulting, in the escape of apprehended prisoners and it was held that mere negligence of duty did nut amount to violation of duty within the meaing of Section 29 of the Police Act. A reference was trade to Muhammad Naim v. Emperor (A I R 1927 Lah, 15,) but that too has no applica tion to this case. It was the case of a police officer, who while oil leave got himself treated by a private doctor and it was held that it was not incumbent upon him to join the official hospital and hence not reporting to duty do get himself treated in a civil hospital did not amount to an offence under section 29 of the Act. We are of the view that rule 16.21 of the Police Rules was within the competence of full‑fledged power of the Inspector ‑General of Police and is not ultra vires of section 7 and 12 of the Police Act. Section 7 inter alia contemplates the dismissal, suspension or reduction of any police officer, subject to such rules as the Provincial Government may from time to time make under this Act. Section 12 gives powers to Inspector‑General of Police subject to the approval of the Provincial Government to frame rules inter alia relating to the places at which the members of the police force shall reside and the particular services to be performed by them, and relative to the prevention of abuse or neglect of duty, and for rendering such force efficient in the discharge of its duties. The confinement of the suspended police officer to the Police Lines is by way of discipline and not by way of punishment. A police officer attached to a police station is also under similar discipline. It will be wrong to say that the sureties demanded that the police constables after they had been bailed out should have stayed with them in preference to their staying at the Police Lines. There is no evidence on the point that the sureties made such demand from the police constables concerned. Even otherwise, from the point of view of the surety a police constable who is enlarged on bail by a criminal Court would be safer if kept in Police Lines than while in charge of the surety himself. The prosecuting Inspector was competent to suspend the respondents under section 23 of the Police Act. The rule in Ramgopal Adhikari v. Emperor. (supra) was distinguished in Emperor v. Muhammad Fazle Bari (supra). The Police Act and Rules as referred to above are in conformity with the view taken in Emperor v. Muhammad Fazle Bari (supra). The respondents had no excuse for absconding themselves either on the first occasion or on the second after they had been lawfully suspended and confined to the Police Lines. They are clearly guilty of the offence punishable under section 29 of the Police Act. We, accepting the appeals preferred by the Crown, convict them under section 29 of the Police Act and sentence them to pay a fine of Rs. 100 or in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment each. I agree in the conclusion reached by my learned brother that Rule 16. 21 of the Punjab Police Rules is intra vires the provisions of the Police Act as sections 7 and 12 of the Act read together would give ample power to the I. G. Police to frame a rule providing for suspension and posting of a police official to the Police Lines, in anticipation of an inquiry into his conduct. With all respect to the learned Judge who decided that case, it seems to me that in Ramgopal Adhikari v. Emperor (supra) "detention in quarters" was con fused with the purely disciplinary measure of posting to Police Lines, which would give liberty to the official concerned to move about within the limis of the lines but not to absent himself therefore without the permission of competent authority. The law appears, if I might say with respect, to have been correctly laid down in Emperor v. Muhammad Fazle‑Bari (supra) I agree therefore that acquittals of the respondents were wrong in law and should be set aside. I further agree to the order proposed by my learned brother. A. H. Appeal accepted.