YADAV, J. - (1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that one Mangilal Gour, Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jalore submitted a complaint under Sec. 29 of the Police Act on 12. 4. 1982 in the, court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore alleging therein that while discharging the function of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, he passed a judicial order on 16. 1. 1982 for production of police diary in CR No. 118/78 in Criminal Case No. 93/89 known as Berisal Singh v. Daulat Singh & others. The revisionist was required to produce the aforesaid case diary on 23. 2. 1982 in pursuance of the judicial order passed by Shri Mangilal Gour, Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jalore. In abundant caution and looking into the urgency, the learned Magistrate wrote a letter to the revisionist on 19. 1. 82 directing him to produce the case dairy on 23. 2. 82. The revisionist did not care to produce the case diary on 23. 2. 82. Thus, the complainant had no option except to give notice under Sec. 29 of the Police Act to the revisionist through the Superintendent of Police, Jalore directing therein to produce the case diary on 2. 3. 82 but the revisionist deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order passed by Shri Mangilal Gour, Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Jalore and wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the competent court. It is also alleged that Superintendent of Police, Jalore wrote a letter to the revisionist on 27. 2. 82 directing him to produce the police diary before the court concerned on 2. 3. 82. It is also alleged that when the revisionist received a letter from the Superintendent of Police, Jalore only then he started to make search of the case diary but did not pay any heed to the order passed by the court summoning the police diary.
(2.) IN support of the case, the prosecution examined Shri Mangilal Gour, Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Jalore. The revisionist pleaded not guilty and claimed his trial. The revisionist also appeared in the witness-box as DW 1. An application submitted by him on 1. 3. 82 was placed on record and was marked as Ex. D/1. After trial, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate held the revisionist guilty of wilfull disobedience of the direction passed by the competent court of law and held him guilty of the offence under Sec. 29 of the Police Act vide judgement dated 11. 7. 1983. After recording the finding of guilt under Sec. 29 of the Police Act, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore also gave full hearing on the question of sentence to the revisionist and after considering all the rellevant facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate sentenced revisionist to pay one month's salary i. e. for the month of July, 1983 as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. Against the conviction and sentence dated 11. 7. 83 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore, the revisionist preferred an appeal before the court of Sessions, Judge, Jalore. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the revisionist on 17. 10. 84. The revisionist being aggrieved with the judgements of both the courts-below preferred this revision petition before this Court under Sec. 397, Cr. P. C.
(3.) I have heard Mr. G. R. Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H. R. Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and gone through the record of the courts- below. From a close scrutiny of the judgement passed by both the courts-below in the light of evidence available on record, I am fully convinced with the concurrent finding of guilt recorded by both the courts-below which is eminently just and proper and does not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397 Cr. P. C. A further close scrutiny of both the judgments of the subordinate courts lead to an irresistable conclusion that the finding of guilt recorded by both the court-below are based on analytical discussion of evidence on record. In support of the finding of guilt recorded by both the courts-below, the sub-ordinate courts had given cogent and convincing reasons which are perfectly legal and valid. However, in support of the aforesaid finding. I would like to give me own additional reasons for dismissing the present Cr. Revision Petition. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present revision petition, the mandatory provision of Sec. 29 of the Police Act, 1861 is reproduced below in extenso: - "sec. 29. Penalties for neglect of duty etc. : - Every Police Officer who shall be guilty of any violation of duty or wilful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order made by competent authority, or who shall withdraw from the duties of his office without permission, or without having given previous notice for the period of two months or who, being absent on leave, shall fail without reasonable cause, to report himself for duty on the expiration of such leave, or who shall engage without authority in any employment other than his police duty, or who shall be guilty of cowardice, or who shall offer any unwarrantable personal violance to any person in his custody shall be liable on conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty not exceeding three month's pay, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for a period not exceeding three months, or to both. " ;