CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1966) 11 KAR CK 0007

Rama vs Superintendent of Police, Kolar and Another

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 9 November 1966 · Citation: AIR 1967 Kar 220 : (1967) CriLJ 1543

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.M. Kalagate, J · A.R. Somnath Iyer, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 1473 of 1964

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 340 words

Somnath Iyer, J.—The petitioner who was a police constable in the Chickballapur town police station was charged with misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding which was commenced against him. The allegation against him was that he infringed the provisions of the Prohibition Act and misbehaved with a merchant of Chickballapur town on February 14, 1964. It transpires that in respect of the offence stated to have been committed under the Mysore Prohibition Act, the Sub-Inspector registered a case against the petitioner u/s 76 of that Act, although no prosecution in respect of that offence has vet commenced .

2.

We are told that the petitioner declined to participate in the disciplinary proceeding on the ground that there was an impending criminal prosecution against him in respect of the same matter in consequence, the disciplinary proceedings has proceeded ex parte up to a particular stage

3.

The argument maintained by Mr. Rama Jois on behalf of the petitioner is that the contemplated criminal prosecution is an impediment to the commencement of a disciplinary proceeding. It was said that the evidence which was proposed to be produced against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding was identical with the evidence by which the offence u/s 76 of the Mysore Prohibition Act could be proved and there could not be a parallel disciplinary proceeding

4.

This postulate is plainly unsupportable. What constitutes an impediment to a disciplinary proceeding is an acquittal in a criminal prosecution in respect of the same charge. If there be no such acquittal and even if a criminal prosecution has commenced and is continuing, a disciplinary proceeding in respect of an accusation which forms the subject matter of the charge in the Criminal Court is not forbidden and can be commenced and concluded so long as the prosecution has not ended in an acquittal. That is the principle clearly emerging from the decision of the Supreme Court in Uttar Chand (dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another,

5.

We dismiss this writ petition (6) No costs.

6.

Petition dismissed.