Pritam Singh Pattar, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment dated 31st July, 1968 of Shri K.L. Nagpal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, by which he acquitted Phula Ram, Respondent of the offence under Section 7 of the East Punjab Essential Services Maintenance Act; 1947 (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) THE prosecution case is that Phula Ram Constable was sanctioned seven days earned leave by the authorities with effect from 5th September, 1967 to 11th September, 1967. He, however, did not resume duties after the expiry of his leave. He sent a telegram on 11th September, 1967 for extension of his leave on the ground of illness of his wife. This request of the accused was rejected by the Superintendent of Police on 15th September, 1967 and he was ordered to join duty and necessary information was sent to him by registered post. He was also informed that in case of his failure to join duties he will be proceeded against and he will be treated as absent and strict disciplinary action will be taken against him. This registered letter was received back undelivered with the report that he was evading service to take delivery of the same. Another letter was issued to him by the Police Department which was delivered to him on 7th October, 1967, but in spite of that he did not resume duty. Subsequently he sent a medical certificate of Government Dispensary Dhamtan Sahib, wherein the Doctor had recommended him 15 days rest, which was received in the Police Department on 13th October, 1967. The Respondent, however, did not resume duty even on 26th October, 1967. He sent another telegram for extension of leave up to 8th November, 1967 on the ground of his illness without attaching any medical certificate. No action was taken on this telegram as his request for further leave had already been declined. No application was received from him for further extension of leave after 8th November, 1967.
(3.) A case under Section 7 of the Act was registered against the Respondent. Phula Ram was arrested on 5th December, 1967 and was challaned. The Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge against him and recorded the evidence of the prosecution and also of the Respondent, but did not give any finding on merits, and acquitted the Respondent on the preliminary objection raised by his counsel that the complaint which was the foundation of the whole case was not duly proved and exhibited and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence against him. Feeling dissatisfied the State Government filed this appeal alleging that the complaint was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and it was not essential to prove and exhibit it and the decision of the trial Court was wrong and that it may be reversed and the accused may be convicted and sentenced under Section 7 of the Act.;