24 Jul 1975
Order issued
ConcludedThe Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.
Disciplinary action · Procedural only.
Source: ILR (1975) 1 P&H 417
Not yet re-checked.
CW-1975-0003Kapurthala, PunjabJudgment 24 July 1975
Inspector-General of Police, Punjab vs [name withheld]
Permanent Constable was allegedly found carrying 4,500 ml of illicit liquor near village Athali on 6 November 1966 (FIR 383 under the Excise Act, Phagwara), but the Magistrate acquitted him on 17 June 1967 without recording the available official witnesses after the prosecution gave up the public witness as won over. The SP Kapurthala dismissed him on 23 December 1967 after disciplinary proceedings, affirmed on appeal and revision, but a Single Judge allowed his writ on 20 July 1971. The Division Bench held the acquittal was without jurisdiction and the charge had failed on a technical ground, so action lay under Rule 16.3(1)(a), and the wrong citation of clause (b) did not vitiate it. It allowed the State's appeal, set aside the Single Judge, and restored the dismissal.
Externally reportedV2
What this record means
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →Detailed record
Report card
By judgment dated 24 July 1975 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 10 of 1972, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Harbans Singh, Bal Raj Tuli, JJ.) upheld the disciplinary action taken against the Constable, Punjab Police (Kapurthala).
- Register number
- PB 09 CW 0001
- Case reference
- Letters Patent Appeal No. 10 of 1972 / ILR (1975) 1 P&H 417
- Court and date
- Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Harbans Singh, Bal Raj Tuli, JJ.), 24 July 1975
- Officer(s) at the material time
- Constable, Punjab Police (Kapurthala)
- Present service status
- Not ascertained from the cited sources.
- Provisions invoked
- Section 61/1/14 of the Excise Act; Rule 16.3(1)(a) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934; Rule 16.3(1)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934
- Finding of the Court (extract)
- “We respectfully agree with the learned Single Judge, that the criminal charge against the respondent had failed on a technical ground because the Magistrate refused to record the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses, who were available” (at para 4)
- Verdict, sentence and quantum
- Disciplinary action upheld. Sentence: dismissal.
- Present status of the proceedings
- No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
Current position
The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 24 July 1975 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Evidence position
Recorded allegations
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Attributed to the court
What the court found
Holding not recorded separately.
“We respectfully agree with the learned Single Judge, that the criminal charge against the respondent had failed on a technical ground because the Magistrate refused to record the evidence of the two prosecution witnesses, who were available” (para 4)
Separate from verification
Institutional response
Continuing record
Follow-up history
19 Sep 2026
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.