Patna High Court
Mohamed Yusuf vs Emperor on 7 January, 1920
Equivalent citations: 56IND. CAS.497
ORDER Adami, J.
1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Gaya under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the conviction of the petitioner under Section 29 of the Indian Police Act, V of 1861, should be set aside on the ground that (he Superintendent of Police had no power to pass the orders for the breach of which the petitioner has been convicted.
2. The petitioner belongs to the Mounted Police Force stationed at Jehanabad, The Superintendent of Police of Gaya passed orders regulating the routine work of Sowars belonging to the Mounted Police Force. One of these orders was that the men should parade, water, and feed their horses and groom them. The petitioner neglected to groom his horse and left it to his grass cutter to do the work, and on another occasion neglected also to groom the horse and when warned was impertinent.
3. The learned Sessions Judge urges that the Superintendent of Police had no power to issue rules regulating the conduct or work of the Mounted Police, He refers to Section 12 of the Police Act in support of his contention that the Inspector-General of Police alone may frame rules and orders relative to the particular services to be performed by the members of the Police Force, He relies on the case of Queen-Empress v. Abdul Hossein 15 C. 194 : 12 Ind. Jur. 347 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) and also on Bhola Nath Das, In the matter of the petition of 12 C. 427 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 290 I am of opinion that the contention of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be supported. The order as to the duties of the members of this Force was an order which the Superintendent of Police could pass in view of his position as Commander of the Force. It was not in the nature of a rule but was a lawful order regulating the duties of the men under his command. It is a District Order similar to regimental orders passed by the Colonel of a Regiment, and the Superintendent of Police had as much power to order the men to groom the horses themselves as he had to order them to do any duty in the course of their day's work. It was a lawful order and under Section 29 the members of the Force were bound to obey it. It was in no way a rule of the nature contemplated in Section 12 of the Police Act.
4. The conviction, therefore, I hold, was a legal one. It is in my mind, however, some, what unfortunate that recourse was had to the Criminal Court. The offence was one which might better have been punished depart-mentally. I am of opinion too that the sentence under the circumstances of the case was unduly severe. I uphold the conviction, but would reduce the sentence to imprisonment for five days including any term of imprisonment which the petitioner has already served.