Criminal Appeal No 23 of 1976
From the Judgment and Order dated 21 11 1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No 39672
OP Sharma and MS Dhillon for the Appellant
KK Manchanda and B Datta for the Respondent
990 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
The respondent was convicted by the learned Special Judge Ludhiana of an offence under Sec
51d read with Sec
52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs One hundred
On appeal a learned Single Judge of the High Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 1638 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934
An application for the grant of a Certificate under article 134 1 c of the Constitution was moved before the learned Single Judge and was granted
The learned Single Judge observed that when the case was argued before him an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Hoshiar Singh vs The State was not brought to his notice and that had the decision been brought to his notice he would not have allowed the appeal merely on the ground that there was no compliance with Rule 1638 of the Punjab Police Rules
The learned Single Judge of the High Court was clearly wrong in acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was noncompliance with the provisions of Rule 1638
A perusal of Chapter XVI of the Punjab Police Rules shows that the provisions of the Chapter deal with Departmental punishments and the procedure to be followed in imposing such punishments
Guidance is given as to how Police Officers guilty of misconduct and criminal offences may be dealt with
The Chapter begins with Rule 161 the first clause of which is as follows No police officer shall be departmentally punished other wise than as provided id these rules
Thereafter the rules refer in some detail to the various punishments which may be imposed and provide for suspension subsistence etc
Rule 1624 makes exhaustive provision for the procedure in Depart mental enquiries
Provision for review and appeal is made in the sub sequent rules
Rule 1638 prescribes more correctly we may say Rule 1638 lays down the guide lines of the procedure to be followed when a Superintendent of Police receives any complaint about the commission of a criminal offence by a police officer in connection with his official relations with the public
The Superintendent of Police is enjoined to give immediate information to the District Magistrate who is thereupon to decide whether the investigation of the complaint shall be conducted by a Police Officer or by a Magistrate
It is stated that though a judicial prosecution shall normally follow  the matter may be disposed of departmentally if the District Magistrate so orders 991 for reasons to be recorded
The further Departmental procedure is prescribed by the remaining clauses
It is clear that Rule 1638 is not designed to be a condition precedent to the launching of a prosecution in a Criminal Court it is in the nature of instructions to the Department and is not meant to be of the nature of a sanction or permission for a prosecution
Nor can it override the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act
We agree with the observations of Dua and Mahajan JJ
in Hoshiar Singh vs The State supra where they said 
I do not think Rule 1638 was intended or could have the effect of imposing as a condition precedent to the trial of a police officer in a Court of law a sanction or an order by the District Magistrate as contemplated therein
The language appears to me to be confined only to depart mental enquiries
The investigation for establishing a prima facie case is merely meant to guide the District Magistrate uncontrolled by the opinion of the Superintendent of Police whether or not a departmental proceeding should be initiated against the guilty party and it is the procedure and the punishment controlling the departmental proceedings alone which appear to have been prescribed by this rule
We have therefore no option but to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law
It is so ordered
PBR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The Punjab Police Rules 1934 lay down the procedure to be followed in imposing punishment on police officer found guilty of mis conduct or a criminal offence and make an exhaustive provision for departmental inquiries
Rule 1638 lays down the guidelines to be followed by the Superintendent of Police in dealing with a complaint about the commission of a criminal offence by a Police officer in connection with his official relations with the public
It enjoins upon the Superintendent to give immediate information to the District Magistrate who thereupon has to decide whether investigation of the complaint should be conducted by a police officer or by a Magistrate
The respondent a police officer was convicted of an offence under section 51d read with section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer imprisonment
On the ground that there was non compliance with the provisions of Rule 1638 of the Rules a single Judge of the High Court acquitted the respondent
Setting aside the order of acquittal and remanding the case to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law  HELD The High Court was wrong in acquitting the respondent
990 D Rule 1638 is not designed to be a condition precedent to the launching of a prosecution in a Criminal Court
It is in the nature of instructions to the department and is not meant to be of the nature of a sanction or permission for a prosecution nor can it override the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act
991 A B Hoshiar Singh vs The State LXVII 1965 Punjab Law Reporter 438  442 approved