This revision arises from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat under section 29 of Police Act in C. R. Case No. 697 of 1981 and affirmed by the Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Criminal Appeal No. 41 (3) of 1982. 2. Facts leading up to this criminal revision petition may shortly be stated. The accused-petitioner Sariful Hussain has been convicted under section 29 of the Police Act and has been sentenced to fine of Rs 200/-. The accusation against the accused-petitioner is that while he was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Golaghat Police Station a command certificate was served on him on 30.3.81 under the order of the Superintendent of Police concerned directing him to join in Jorhat Police Reserve. Accordingly he reported for duty at Jorhat Police Reserve on 31.3.81 at 11.20 AM. The accused was present at Jorhat Police Reserve till forenoon of 1.4.81, but he left Police Reserve since afternoon of 1.4.81 without any permission from the concerned authority and his where about was not known. The matter was reported in writing on 28.4.81 to the Superintendent of Police, Jorhat. On receipt of the report, the Superintendent of Police passed an order to start a prosecution against the accused-petitioner under section 29 of the Police Act. Accordingly, officer-in-charge, Jorhat Police Station submitted offence report under section 29 of the Police Act against the accused-petitioner. The accused petitioner denied the accusation and pleaded no guilty. The Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced him, as already stated. On appeal by the accused-petitioner, the Sessions Judge, Jorhat affirmed the conviction and sentence. 3. Mr. A. K. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no notice was given to the petitioner as is provided under section 42 of the Police Act and, therefore, conviction and sentence are bad in law. Miss U. Baruah, the learned counsel for the State has contended that no notice is required for a criminal prosecution under section 42 of the Police Act. 4. Section 42 of the Police Act runs . "All actions and prosecutions against any person, which may be lawfully brought for anything done or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act. 4. Section 42 of the Police Act runs . "All actions and prosecutions against any person, which may be lawfully brought for anything done or intended to be done under the provisions of this Act. or under the general police powers hereby given shall be commenced within three months after the act complained of shall have been committed, and not otherwise ; and notice in writing of such action and of the cause thereof shall be given to the defendant, or to the District Superintendent or an Assistant District Superintendent of the District in which the act was committed, one month at least before the commencement of the action." 5. In section 42, the words 'action' 'prosecution' and 'defendant' have be?u used. An 'action' may be criminal action or civil action. The defendant means a person required to answer in an action or suit, or the accused in a criminal case. The word 'accused' is generic name for the defendant in a criminal case. The question then is,-Whether the word 'action' used in section 42 in respect of the notice is civil action or criminal action ? Mr. Phukan has referred me to a decision of the Suprme Court in Maulnd Ahmad vs. State of U.P. (1963) 2 SCR 38: 1964 (2) Cri LJ 71. In that case, the Supreme Court has held that, if there is a prosecution of § police officer for an offence under section 29 of the Police Act, such pros­ecution should b^ done within the period of limitation mentioned in section 42 of the Police Act. There was, however, no discussion with respect to the notice under section 42 of the Police Act! Therefore, the decision does not help the petitioner. In Emperor vs. Alfred Admond, AIR 1934 Nagpur 206, it has been held that 'action' means a civil action and that notice of a criminal prosecution is not required by section 42'. I respectfully agree with the reasons and conclusion therein. Therefore, in respect of the notice under section 42, 'action' means civil action. Therefore, no notice is required for a criminal prosecution. 6. Mr. Phukan has further contended that the accusation against the petitioner does not disclose an offence under section 79 of the Police Act. I respectfully agree with the reasons and conclusion therein. Therefore, in respect of the notice under section 42, 'action' means civil action. Therefore, no notice is required for a criminal prosecution. 6. Mr. Phukan has further contended that the accusation against the petitioner does not disclose an offence under section 79 of the Police Act. The Courts below have held that the petitioner absented himself from the Police Reserve without leave or reasonable cause and, there­fore, he was guilty of the offence punishable under section 29 of the Police Act in view of rule 92(b) of the Part III of the Assam Police Manual which provides : "A Police officer who absents himself without leave is liable to prosecution under section 29 of the Police Act." 7. The question which, therefore, arises whether the petitioner absenting himself from the Police Reserve without leave will come within the purview of section 29 of the Police Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Relevant portion of section 29 of the Police Act is as follows- "Every police officer who shall be guilty of any violation of duty or willful breach or neglect of any rule or regulation or lawful order made by competent authority, or who shall withdraw from the duties of his office without permission ..... shall be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty not excee­ding three months' pay, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a period of not exceeding three months, or to both”. 9. In section 29 of the Police Act, the expression 'violation' of duty has been used, but the next or immediate words after the expression 'violation of duty' are 'willful breach or neglect'. Therefore, considering the associated words, namely 'breach' or 'neglect' expression ^violation of duty means breach of duty or neglect of duty. 10. Under section 22 of the Police Act every police officer is to be considered to be always on duty and may at any time be employed as police officer in any part of the general Police district. Therefore, considering the associated words, namely 'breach' or 'neglect' expression ^violation of duty means breach of duty or neglect of duty. 10. Under section 22 of the Police Act every police officer is to be considered to be always on duty and may at any time be employed as police officer in any part of the general Police district. Therefore, the absence from the Police Reserve or Police Lines would amount to neglect of duty, i.e, if the p< lice officer had absented himself from the Police Reserve, he may have made himself liable to the penalty for neglect of duty or breach of duty under section 29 of the Police Act, or he may have made himself to the departmental punishment for absence from the Police Reserve or Police Lines without permission. But in the present case, the petitioner has been placed under suspension with effect from 1.4.81, vide order dated 1.4. 81 (Ext.3). The accusation against the petitioner is that he absented himself from the Police Reserve or Police Lines. The question then is what would be effect of the suspension on the case. In State of M.P. vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1977 SC 1466 , the Supreme Court has held that the real effect of the order of suspension is that though the civil servant continues to be in his service, he is not permitted to work and is paid subsistence allowance which is less than his salary under the relevant rules. However it may Denoted that, if the suspension is by way of punish­ment permissible under, relevant laws, the effect of the suspension may be otherwise. In the present case, it appears from the order of suspension is that the petitioner continues to be in the service but he has not been permitted to work with effect from 1.4.81. When he was not permitted to work, the question of breach of duty or neglect of duty or withdrawal from the duties of the office does not arise as he cannot be said to be on duty on and from 1.4.81 during the period of the suspension. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed, the convi­ction and sentence are set aside. Fine, if realised, shall be refunded.