JUDGMENT 1. In this case, the Petitioner, a Police constable, was convicted under sec. 13 B, cl. (c), of Act IV of 1866, and sentenced to 14 days' rigorous imprisonment. The charge against him was that while on duty in Kyd Street he was in possession of a sum of annas four contrary to an order passed by the Commissioner of Police which was his duty as such Police officer to obey. He was placed on his trial and one witness was examined. Thereupon, it appears, the accused pleaded guilty to having as a matter of fact the money in his possession. He was thereupon convicted and thereafter obtained the present Rule from this Court calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence imposed upon him should not be set aside on the ground, first, that the order said to have been contravened was not proved, and secondly, that it was not proved that the constable at the time in question was on duty. In his explanation the Presidency Magistrate says, "the rule, the contravention of which was the subject-matter of the complaint, is contained in Government Order No. 746-P., dated 12th February 1910, and as such requires no formal proof." That may be so. But it was advisable that a copy of the Government Order or an extract therefrom or a reference thereto should have been placed on the record. It is then stated that the witness examined, viz., the Sub-Inspector, deposed that the accused was on duty at the time in question. The duty has not been specified. The accused now states that at the time in question he was in fact not engaged on Police duty but was engaged in the private business of a certain Police officer. It would seem from the affidavit filed in support of the application for the present rule which has not been contradicted that before the trying Magistrate he made this statement and also the statement that he had been on duty the previous night. It would thus appear that his plea of guilty is to be looked upon merely as an admission of the fact that he had at the time in question the sum of annas four upon his person. It would thus appear that his plea of guilty is to be looked upon merely as an admission of the fact that he had at the time in question the sum of annas four upon his person. In these circumstances, we make the Rule absolute, set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the Petitioner be re-tried and that in the re trial his defence be considered and adjudicated upon. We further direct that the re-trial do take place at the Central Police Court before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, or a Magistrate to be nominated by him.