criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 424 - rioting--omission to consider case of each accused separately, effect of. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. but it is well settled that if a rule passes the twin tests of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it cannot be said to be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the impugned rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. the object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. therefore, as an employer, the government is entitled.....orderwilliam ayling, j.1. the judgment of the joint magistrate, while fairly discussing the prosecution story as a whole and giving satisfactory reasons for accepting it, has omitted to consider the case against the individual accused separately. this is very necessary in a rioting case in which 11 accused are implicated, and in which the occurrence is obviously the outcome of previously existing ill-feeling. the magistrate has, in fact, declined to discuss the alibi evidence on the simple ground that each alibi is spoken to only by a single witness. this is not so. the alibi of 2nd accused is supported by the 2nd and 5th defence witnesses; that of 5th and 6th accused by the 4th and 5th defence witnesses; and that of 11th accused by the 1st, 5th and 6th defence witnesses, as well as 9th prosecution witness. the case of this latter accused calls for special consideration also, as he is admittedly a particular enemy of the 1st prosecution witness, and cross-examination of the latter has been directed to show that he has been impleaded falsely on that score alone. i think it must be said that the magistrate has failed to consider the question, whether the evidence regarding each individual accused is sufficient to show that he participated in the rioting.2. i, therefore, set aside the order of the joint magistrate and direct him to restore the appeal to file and dispose of it according to law, giving the parties an opportunity of addressing fresh arguments if they desire as regards the individual complicity of accused.