State of Punjab Vs. Charan Singh

State of Punjab vs Charan Singh

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Feb 20, 1981

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/650727

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/650727
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Baharul Islam and; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 20, 1981
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1976
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 19(1) r/w Rule 8 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 & Sections 28 & 43(6)& Income Tax Rules, 1962, Rule 10: [S.H. Kapadia & H.L. Dattu, JJ] Depreciation - Composite income from tea grown and manufactured in India - The respondent assessee was in the business of growing and manufacturing of tea. For Assessment Year ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Rule 16.38

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Punjab

Advocate O.P. Sharma amd M.S. Dhillon, Advs

Respondent

Charan Singh

Advocate K.K. Manchanda and ; B. Datta, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Rule 16.38
Cases Referred: Hoshiar Singh v. The State (supra
Reported In: AIR1981SC1007; 1981CriLJ712; 1981(1)SCALE399; (1981)2SCC197; [1981]2SCR989

Court's Analysis

Prior History: From the Judgment and Order Dated 21-11-1973 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 396/72.

Excerpt

- section 19(1) r/w rule 8 of income tax rules, 1962 & sections 28 & 43(6)& income tax rules, 1962, rule 10: [s.h. kapadia & h.l. dattu, jj] depreciation - composite income from tea grown and manufactured in india - the respondent assessee was in the business of growing and manufacturing of tea. for assessment year 1988-1989, the assessee contended that the ao had erred in determining the opening written-down value of the block of assets by not following the provisions of section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 act. the ao had deducted 100% of the depreciation for the preceding year calculated at the prescribed rate from the opening written-down value. the assessee claimed that only 40% of the depreciation allowed at the prescribed rate ought to have been deducted. this argument came to be rejected by cit (a). the tribunal in aplpeal hald that since 40% of the assessees composite income ws chargeable under section 28 of the 1961 act for the purposes of computing the written-down value of depreciable assets used in the tea business, only 40% instead of 100% of depreciation allowable at the prescribed rate should be deducted in the case of the assessee. this view of the tribunal was affirmed by the impugned judgment of the high court held, the judgment in c.i.t. v nand lal bhandari mills ltd, air 1966 sc 1026; (1966) 60 itr 173 squarely applies to the case. the assessee is engaged in the business of growing and manufacturing of tea. as per the provisions of section 10(1) of the 1961 act read with rule 8,40% of the business income derived from the sale of tea grown and manufactured in india by the assessee was liable to tax. in nand lal case, the supreme court was concerned with the world income, this case is concerned with the composite income. nand lal case is, therefore, squarely applicable to the present case. there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the high court. in cases where rule 8 applies, the income which is brought to tax as business income is only 40%..........in some detail to the various punishments which may be imposed and provide for suspension, subsistence etc. rule 16.24 makes exhaustive provision for the procedure in departmental enquiries. provision for review and appeal is made in the subsequent rules. rule 16.38 prescribes-more correctly we may say-rule 16.38 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 for reasons to be recorded. the further departmental procedure is prescribed by the remaining clauses. it is clear that rule 16.38 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 v. the state (supra) where they said :.i do not think rule 16.38 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 departmental 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.....

Full Judgment

Chinnappa Reddy, J.

1. The respondent was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, of an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) 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 16.38 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 v. The State LXVII-1965 Punjab Law Reporter 438 @ 442 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 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules.

2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court was clearly wrong in acquitting the respondent on the ground that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 16.38. 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 16.1, the first clause of which is as follows:

No police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as provided in these rules.

Thereafter the rules refer in some detail to the various punishments which may be imposed and provide for suspension, subsistence etc. Rule 16.24 makes exhaustive provision for the procedure in Departmental enquiries. Provision for review and appeal is made in the subsequent rules. Rule 16.38 prescribes-more correctly we may say-Rule 16.38 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 for reasons to be recorded. The further Departmental procedure is prescribed by the remaining clauses. It is clear that Rule 16.38 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 v. The State (supra) where they said :.I do not think Rule 16.38 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 departmental 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.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1981 Same Parties State of Punjab vs Charan Singh Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Baharul Islam and; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ. Acts & Sections Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - Rule 16.38

Criminal