Public Prosecutor Vs. Dhanapal

.....then fall under any one of the two explanations under clause (iv) of rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. -- t.n. district police act, 1859. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); 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..........he heard that lead is used in the processing of turmeric and that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the accused had knowledge of the extra lead in the turmeric. he has failed to note that section 16 of the act does not require that the vendor of food stuff should know that it is adulterated. the act is intended to protect public health and there is no ingredient in sections 7 and 16 of the act as regards mens rea apart from the act of selling adulterated articles. the acquittal of the respondent under section 7 read with section 16 of the act cannot therefore be sustained and it is hereby set aside. i find the accused guilty and convict him under section 7 read with section 16 and rule 44 of the act.3. but the observations made by the learned district magistrate should be taken into consideration in awarding the sentence. the learned district magistrate has rightly pointed out that the wholesale dealers or manufacturers of the articles are the real offenders who ought to have been prosecuted. the respondent is a petty maligai vendor and he has bona fide purchased the article from the wholesale dealer d.w. 1, lakshmanan chettiar. having regard to these facts, i consider it sufficient to admonish the respondent under section 3 of the madras probation of offenders act.