HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the order of a Magistrate at Ludhiana acquitting Murli Dhar respondent who was prosecuted for an offence under Section 29 of the Police Act.
(2.) THE facts of the case are quite simple and not seriously disputed. Murli Dhar was recruited in the Police as a constable in Lyallpur District in 1930, and after the partition he was appointed as a Constable in Ludhiana District. In October 1954, while he was on leave he was arrested for being in possession of illicit liquor and a case was started against him under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Excise Act. As soon as this reached the knowledge of the Superintendent of Police, the latter by his order dated the 16th of October 1954, placed Murli Dhar under suspension as from the previous day and order-ed him to report to Police Lines, Ludhiana, without delay. The accused presented himself in the Police Lines on the morning of the 24th of october 1954 and remained there answering the daily roll-calls until the 19th of january 1955, when he was found to be absent at the evening roll-call at 7 P. M. after which he remained absent.
(3.) IN due course he was prosecuted under Section 29 of the Police Act. His defence was that he had been required by his surety Kishan Singh, the clerk of an advocate, to live in his own house, which adjoins that of the surety, so that the latter could keep him under proper surveillance. In these circumstances the learned Magistrate held that the accused was not a free agent and, largely on the strength of a decision of my Lord the Chief Justice in a Criminal Revn. No: 1246 of 1950. Sohan Lal v. The State D/- 21-12-1951 (Punjab) (A), held that no offence had been committed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.