Skip to content


Saruram Keot Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Criminal
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantSaruram Keot
RespondentThe State
Excerpt:
- .....violation of duty. it is not known whether absence of the petitioner from the barrack or at the parade was violation of duty. dr. medhi, appearing on behalf of the-petitioner argues that the petitioner was detailed for duty elsewhere and as such it could not be possible for him to be present at the barrack or at the parade on the days in question. this could be-proved only if the roster was produced. the-roster was called for, but it was not produced. as a result the prosecution did not prove if there was actually any violation of duty. so the case must go back for retrial. the prosecution will have to prove that the absence of the police officer from the barrack or at the parade was violation of some duty or wilful breach or neglect of some rule or regulation or lawful order made by.....
Judgment:

S.K. Dutta, J.

1. This is a revision petition. The accused petitioner was convicted under Section 29 of the Police Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for fifteen days and a fine of Rs. 50/- which will not exceed his three months pay, in default, simple imprisonment for one month more. An appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts at Nowgong was dismissed.

2. The prosecution case is that accused Sararam Keot belonged to the Darrang District Executive Police force and he deserted his duty with effect from 18.1.61, It appears from the evidence on record that the accused was absent in his barrack, and at parade on and from 18.1.61 to 21.1.61. But before a conviction under Section 29 of the Police Act could' be made, it had to be proved that the police officer was guilty of any violation of duty. It is not known whether absence of the petitioner from the barrack or at the parade was violation of duty. Dr. Medhi, appearing on behalf of the-petitioner argues that the petitioner was detailed for duty elsewhere and as such it could not be possible for him to be present at the barrack or at the parade on the days in question. This could be-proved only if the roster was produced. The-roster was called for, but it was not produced. As a result the prosecution did not prove if there was actually any violation of duty. So the case must go back for retrial. The prosecution will have to prove that the absence of the police officer from the barrack or at the parade was violation of some duty or wilful breach or neglect of some rule or regulation or lawful order made by competent authority.

3. In the result, the petition is allowed and I the conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is remanded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //