Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Rule I relates to a cognizable offence, r. II to a non- cognizable. offence, including an offence under s. 29 of the Police Act, and r. III to an offence under s. 7 of the Police Act or a non-cognizable offence, including an offence under s. 29 of the Police Act. Rule III says:

"When a Superintendent of Police sees reason to take action on information given to him, or on his own knowledge or suspicion, that a police officer subordinate to him has committed an offence under section 7 of the Police Act or a non-cognizable offence (including an offence under section 29 of the Police Act) of which he considers it unnecessary at that stage to forward a report in writing to the District Magistrate under rule II above, he will make or cause to be made by an officer senior in rank to the officer charged, a departmental inquiry sufficient to test the truth of the charge. On the conclusion of this inquiry he will decide whether further action is necessary, and if so, whether the officer charged should be departmentally tried, or whether the District Magistrate should be moved to take cognizance of the case under the Criminal Procedure Code..."

The argument is that the words "an offence under s. 7 of the Police Act" take in a cognizable offence and that, therefore, this rule provides for a procedure alternative to that prescribed under r. I. We do not think that this contention is sound. Section 7 of the Police Act empowers certain officers to dismiss, suspend or reduce any police officer of the subordinate rank whom they shall think remiss or negligent in the discharge of his duty, or unfit for the same. The grounds for punishment are comprehensive: they may take in offences under the Indian Penal Code or other penal statutes. The commission of such offences may also be a ground to hold that an officer is unfit to hold his office. Action under this section can, therefore, be taken in respect of, (i) offences only under s. 7 of the Police Act without involving any cognizable or noncognizable offences, that is, simple remissness or negli- gence in the discharge of duty, (ii) cognizable offences, and (iii) non-cognizable offences. Paragraph 486 of the Police Regulations makes this clear. It says that when the offence alleged against a police officer amounts to an offence only under s. 7 of the Police Act, there can be no magisterial inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code. This part of the rule applies to an offence only under s. 7 of the Police Act i. e., the first category mentioned above. Rule I refers to a cognizable offence i. e., the second category, rule 11 to a non-cognizable offence i. e., the third category, and rule III applies to an offence under s. 7 of the Police Act and to a noncognizable offence. Though the word "only" is not mentioned in rule 111, the offence under s. 7 of the Police Act can, in the context, mean an offence only under s. 7 of the said Act i.e., an offence falling under the first category. So understood, the three rules can be reconciled. We, therefore, hold that, as the offence complained of in the present case is a cognizable offence, it falls under rule I and not under rule 111. We, therefore, reject this contention.

"When a magisterial inquiry is ordered it will be made in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and the Superintendent of Police will have no direct concern with it until the conclusion of judicial proceedings or until and unless the case is referred to him for further disposal, but he must give any assistance to the inquiring magistrate that he may legally be called upon to give and he must suspend the accused should this become necessary under paragraph 496." Paragraph 486 says that there can be no magisterial inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code when the offence alleged against a police officer amounts to an offence only under s. 7 of the Police Act, and it provides further that in such cases, and in, other cases until and unless a magisterial inquiry is ordered, inquiry will be made under the direction of the Superintendent of Police in accordance with the rules given thereunder. Under rule I thereof, "Every information received by the police relating to the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer shall be dealt with in the first place under Chapter XIV, Criminal Procedure Code, according to law, a case under the appropriate section being registered in the police station concerned". There are six provisos to that rule. Rule II provides for the inquiry of a non-cognizable offence; and rule III prescribes the procedure in regard to an offence only under s. 7 of the Police Act or a non- cognizable offence of which the Superintendent of Police considers unnecessary at that stage to forward a report in writing to the District Magistrate. Paragraph 488 deals with a judicial trial and para. 489 with a departmental trial. Paragraph 489 says:

"A police officer may be departmentally tried under section 7 of the Police Act-

(1) after he has been tried judicially;

(2) after a magisterial inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code;

(3) after a police investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code or a departmental enquiry under paragraph 486,III above."

There are other provisions dealing with the manner of conducting the inquiries and other connected matters. The rules provide for the magisterial and police inquiry followed, if the inquiry showed the need for further action, by a judicial trial or a departmental trial, or both, consecutively. In the case of cognizable offences the Superintendent of Police is directed to investigate under chapter XIV of the Criminal Pro- p, cedure Code and in the case of non-cognizable offences in the manner provided in rule II of para. 486, and in the case of an offence only under s. 7 of the Police Act or a non- cognizable offence in the manner provided under rule III of para. 486. After one or other of the relevant procedure is followed, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to try a police officer departmentally.