JUDGMENT C.B. Capoor, J. - This is a petition under Sec. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 75 of 1964 State v. Prem Chand initiated for a con ravention of the provisions of Sec. 3(b) sub-Cl. (b) of U.P. Food Grains (Control Acquisition and Distribution) Order, 1963 punishable under Rule 125 (9) (a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 pending in the court of the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) , Allahabad. 2. It was on the report submitted by a Sub-Inspector of police that the criminal proceedings referred to above were initiated against the petitioner. A two-fold contention has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner (1) that an offence under Rule 125(9) (a) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 is not a cognizable offence rather it is a non-cognizable offence and it could not have been investigated into without an order of a Magistrate; and (2) that as no report about the alleged offence was made by the Food Inspector the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) was not competent to take cognizance of the offence. 3. The second contention referred to above can be disposed of easily and I propose to advert to it first. The relevant portion of Rule 154 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 runs as below: "No court or Tribunal shall take cognizance of any alleged contravention of these rules or of any order thereunder except oh a report in writing of the facts constituting such, contravention made by a Public Servant." 4. It will be noticed that in the aforesaid rule there is nothing to indicate that cognizance of the contravention of Rule 125(9) cannot betaken except on a written report of the Food Inspector what the rule requires is that the report in writing must be made by a Public Servant. A Public Servant, according to Rule 2 Sub-Rule (10) of the aforesaid Rules includes any Public servant as defined in the Indian Penal Code and any employee of any Railway Administration . . . engaged in work which is considered by the Central Government to be work of national importance. A Public Servant, according to Rule 2 Sub-Rule (10) of the aforesaid Rules includes any Public servant as defined in the Indian Penal Code and any employee of any Railway Administration . . . engaged in work which is considered by the Central Government to be work of national importance. Public Servant has been defined in Sec. 21 of the India or Penal Code the 7th and 8th clauses of which read as below: 7th: Every person who owns any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement; 8th: Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice or to protect the Public health, safety or convenience. 5. A sub-inspector of police, it is manifest, would be covered by the aforesaid clauses, and there can, therefore, be no doubt that the Sub Inspector of police who had made a report against the petitioner was a Public Servant. No authority is needed in support of this conclusion but if one were needed reference may be made to the case of Parveen Chand Mody v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. p. 1185 wherein at page 1187, Column 1 the following observation was made : "The police officer is a public servant and this is not denied before us." 6. The second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, as already noticed, is that an offence punishable under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules is non-cognizable offence and in support of that contention reliance has been placed on Rule 152 of the aforesaid Rules referred to above. That Rule relates to general power to arrest without warrant and reads as below: "Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person who is reasonably suspected of having committed or of committing or of being about to commit a contravention of Rules 13, 19, 26, 31, 57, 64, 65, 66, 78, 80, 85, 88, 121, 122, 129, 131, 134. 140, 141 or 142 or of any order of direction made or given under any of the said rules." 7. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as Rule 125 does not find place in the aforesaid list it must be held to be non-cognizable. 140, 141 or 142 or of any order of direction made or given under any of the said rules." 7. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that as Rule 125 does not find place in the aforesaid list it must be held to be non-cognizable. At first sight the contention appears to be attractive but as will presently appear it has no substance. It will be noticed that it has not been stated in the aforesaid rule that the offences which do not find place therein are non-cognizable. It is again worthy `only' does not find place after the list of Rules. Rules 26, 118 and 141 did not find place in Rule 152 as originally framed. Those rules were added as re-suit of notifications made in 1962 and 1963. A close examination of the rules catalogued in the aforesaid Rule 152 would indicate that the maximum sentence of imprison of the aforesaid rules with the exception of Rule 26 is two years. According to the schedule appended to the Criminal Procedure Code offences against laws other than the Indian Penal Code which are punishable with imprisonment for one year and upwards but less than three years are non-cognizable and I have no doubt that the intention of the rule making body in including in Rule 152 referred to above some of the offences, which according to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code were non-cognizable was to make them cognizable. If the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner were to be accepted an anomalous position would arise, that is some of the offences which otherwise would have been non-cognizable would be cognizable whereas the offences for which the punishment provided was greater, e.g. contravention of Rule 125 would be non-congnizable. Such an intention, it is clear to me, cannot be imputed to the rule making body. The maximum sentence of imprisonment provided for a contravention of Rule 26 is five years and it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid rule would not have found place in rule 152, if the intention of the rule making body had been to catalogue those offences only, which according to the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code were non-cognizable. I have not been able to lay my hands on the object of the rule making body in including Rule 26 in the list of rules given in Rule 152 and with great respect. I am prone to think that at the time when Rule 26 was added to the list it was overlooked that it was a cognizable offence according to the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and that it was not necessary to incorporate it in the list given in rule 152. I will be repeating myself in observing that he mere inclusion of Rule 26 in the list of rules given in Rule 152, which inclusion, as has already been noticed, was as a result of a subsequent amendment, would not lead to the conclusion that rule 152 was intended to contain an exhaustive list of cognizable offences. 8. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed upon the case of Bital Singh v. State, C.L.J. p. 131 : A.I.R. 1965 Alld. p. 78 wherein it was observed that an offence under Rule was non-cognizable. The question which arose for consideration in the aforesaid case was as to whether an offence under Rule 125 referred to above was bailable or not. The decision of that question turned on the language of Rule 155 of the Defence of India Rules. That rule runs as below: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the rule Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), no person accused or convicted of a contravention of these rule or orders made thereunder shall, if in custody be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (b) where the prosecution oppose the application and the contravention is of any such provision of these Rules or orders made thereunder as the Central Government or the State Government may be notified and the order specify in his behalf, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such contravention. 9. Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules had not been specified by notified order of the Central Government or the State Government and the learned Judges who composed the Division Bench held that the accused were entitled to bail as in the ordinary case. 9. Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules had not been specified by notified order of the Central Government or the State Government and the learned Judges who composed the Division Bench held that the accused were entitled to bail as in the ordinary case. It will be noticed that the question as to whether a certain offence is cognizable or not is not a relevant consideration for the purpose or Rule 155 and with great respect it is submitted that for the purposes of that case it was not necessary to hold that an offence under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules was non-cognizable. The observation made by the learned Judges was an obiter dictum and on its basis it will not be safe to hold that an offence under Rule 125 is non-cognizable. 10. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner has also been placed upon a ruling of the Orissa High Court reported as Babu Lal Agarwal v. Province of Orissa A.I.R. 1954 Orissa 225. That case was under the Defence of India Rules of 1939. Rule 128 of the aforesaid rules mutatis mutandis corresponded to Rule 152 of the 1962 Rules. Rule 81 of 1939 Rules did not find place in the list given in Rule 128 and on the basis of that omission it was held that an offence under Rule 81 was a non-cognizable offence. In the aforesaid case it does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Court that all the offence mentioned in Rule 129, namely, 12, 17, 27, 49, 51, 51-A, 51-B, 52, 53, 57, 59-A, 76A, 78, 78-A, 79, 80, 81-E, 89, 118, 119 and 120 were punishable with imprisonment which extended either to six months or to two years. None of the aforesaid offences was punishable with imprisonment extending to three years. According to the 1939 Rules there were offences which were punishable with imprisonment for three years and more and I am prone to think that the omission to bring to the notice of the Court this important aspect of the case perhaps led to the decision that the offence under Rule 81 - which was punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to three years - was a non-congnizable offence. It appears to have been assumed in the aforesaid case that an exhaustive list of cognizable offence was enumerated in Rule 128 and as Rule 81 was not specified in that Rule it was held that an offence under it was a non-cognizable offence. That this was so would be clear from the following observations made: "Rule 128 of the Defence of India Rules specified the various offences under those rules which are of a cognizable nature. Rule 81 is not specified in that rule and consequently it is clear that an offence under Rule 81(4) is a non-cognizable offence, that is to say that a police officer cannot arrest a person suspected to have committed that offence without a warrant from a Magistrate." 11. With respect I find myself unable to follow the aforesaid Orissa ruling. It would be incongruous that while an offence punishable with imprisonment for term which may extend to six months or to two years would be a cognizable offence ; an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years would be non-cognizable. I am unable to persuade myself to believe that while the rule making body made cognizable certain offences which were otherwise non-cognizable it would make non-cognizable offences punishable with greater punishment and which according to the Criminal Procedure Code were cognizable. 12. For the foregoing reasons I hold that an offence under Rule 125 of the Defence of India Rules 1962 is a cognizable offence and it could have been investigated into by police officer without a specified order of a Magistrate. 13. For the foregoing reasons the petition lacks merits and is dismissed. The stay order is vacated.