JUDGMENT Cuming, J. - The facts of the case, out of which this Rule arises, are these. The Petitioner, Ramgopal Adhikari, is a dismissed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Apparently, certain charges were brought against him. What those charges were it is impossible to discover from the record. Neither the learned advocate, who appears for the Petitioner, nor the learned advocate, who appears for the Crown, has been able to enlighten me on this point. He was, however, committed to the Sessions Court on these charges and ultimately acquitted. Be that as it may, he was placed under suspension by the District Superintendent of Police on the 6th May, 1929, and was ordered to live in the police lines until further orders and also directed not to leave the lines without permission. He made several applications to the Police Superintendent on various occasions for permission to absent himself from the lines and those petitions, apparently, were all rejected--why, it does not appear. Finally, according to his case, and this portion of his case has not been controverted, on the 23rd of September, 1929, he received a telegram that his wife was dangerously ill. He had before this applied, on the 17th September, for a week's time to see his ailing wife and child, but that petition was rejected. On receiving the telegram that his wife was dangerously ill, he applied to the Superintendent of Police for leave and left the lines in anticipation of the permission and, for so doing, he was prosecuted u/s 29 of the Police Act and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 20 only. 2. It is clear to me that the order of the Police Superintendent, confining the Petitioner to the police lines for an indefinite period, is an illegal order. Section 7 of the Police Act is the only section under which he could have been ordered to be kept in confinement and that section provides confinement for a term not exceeding 15 days as an alternative punishment for suspension. But the section does not contemplate confinement in addition to suspension and certainly not indefinite confinement. To order the Petitioner to live in the police lines until further orders and not to leave the lines without permission is to confine him in those lines. The order is clearly illegal. But the section does not contemplate confinement in addition to suspension and certainly not indefinite confinement. To order the Petitioner to live in the police lines until further orders and not to leave the lines without permission is to confine him in those lines. The order is clearly illegal. I have been referred to Rule No. 1067 of the Police Regulations, which states as follows:-"Police ''officers and men, while under suspension, shall reside "in the lines unless permitted by the superintendent "to reside elsewhere and shall attend the fixed roll''calls. Those absent without permission render ''themselves liable to prosecution u/s 29, "Act v. of 1861." It seems to me that this Rule is clearly ultra vires and illegal. The present case is on all fours with the case of Ram Gopal Ghosh v. King-Emperor (1905) 2 C.L.J. 616. There, it is held that an order for suspension and confinement of a police officer for an unlimited period of time exceeding the limits laid down in Clause (b) of Section 7 of Act v. of 1861 is illegal and is not an order which a District Superintendent of Police can legally pass at all, nor one which he can pass in the alternative u/s 7 of the Act; and no conviction u/s 29 of the Act for disobeying such an order is maintainable. 3. Looking at the order itself, it was apparently an unreasonable order. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was under suspension. Certain serious charges had been brought against him and he was under trial for these charges. His petition shows that, at one time, he applied for permission to leave the lines in order to get money for conducting his defence and this was refused. How difficult it would be for the Petitioner to manage his defence in the criminal case, while he was kept in confinement in the lines, can easily be realised. Even if the order in this case had been a legal one, it was certainly, as far as I can see, an entirely unreasonable one. The Assistant Sub-Inspector had no work to do in the lines or anywhere else. He was under suspension and I cannot see for what purpose he should, in such circumstances, be confined to the lines. He should, on the, contrary, have been given every opportunity to prepare his defence and not be hampered. The Assistant Sub-Inspector had no work to do in the lines or anywhere else. He was under suspension and I cannot see for what purpose he should, in such circumstances, be confined to the lines. He should, on the, contrary, have been given every opportunity to prepare his defence and not be hampered. Be that as it may, the order is an illegal one and the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 29 of the Police Act is bad. The conviction of and the sentence imposed upon the Petitioner are, therefore, set aside and he is acquitted. The fine, if paid, must be refunded.