Order This is a petition under sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, to revise the order of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Guntur, dated 16th October, 1956, whereby he held that section 47 of the Madras District Police Act applied to the petitioner’s case. Briefly stated the facts are: that a reserve police constable, off his duty, went to the New Bombay Talkies of Guntur, having purchased a ticket to witness the cinema show. The show had not yet commenced. It was all sultry. The fans were not set to work. There arose some quarrel between the proprietor and the constable in relation to the fans. The proprietor reported on phone to the Police Station, Lalapet (requesting at the same time for necessary action) that the said person was creating a scene inside the premises of the hall in a drunken state. The Police officer in charge of the station house deputed a Head Constable who came to the hall. He was shown the reserve constable there in the bench class as the person who was in a drunken state and had created the scene. The Head Constable found in his examination that there was no smell of alcohol; but upon the insistence of the proprietor he took the constable to the hospital for ascertaining whether he was drunk. The medical report went against the proprietor. Thereafter the Police after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the proprietor accusing him that he made a false and malicious report against the Police officer, that he was drunk, even though that was not a fact. The proprietor raised a preliminary objection that as the person concerned was a reserve police constable not on duty and had come to the cinema hall as a private person and was acting or purporting to act in his private capacity and not as a Police officer when he created the scene, section 47 did not apply. The learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate repelled this contention on the ground that the wording of the section was not capable of an interpretation that the person concerned should be on duty at the time of the said offence which is attributed to him. This revision petition is directed against this order. The learned Stationary Sub-Magistrate repelled this contention on the ground that the wording of the section was not capable of an interpretation that the person concerned should be on duty at the time of the said offence which is attributed to him. This revision petition is directed against this order. The learned counsel referred me to a decision of this Court in P.V. Ramarao v. State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram1, It was a case where there was an allegation of corruption against the Police officer. The observations of the learned Judge who decided the case were as follows: “No doubt the words”any false or frivolous charge against any Police officer“occurring in section 47 would not cover charges levelled against persons who happened to be Police officers but relating purely to their situation as private individuals. The words should be cons trued consistently with the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is as stated in the preamble 10 make the Police force a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime, and to re-organise the Police force. The false or frivolous charges must affect the Police officer as an instrument for the prevention and detection of crime or as a member of the organisation of the Police force........” The learned counsel laying stress on these observations argues that section 47 has no application to allegations made against a person who happens to be a Police officer unless that allegation is made while he was acting or purporting to act in the discharge of duties as a Police officer. The learned counsel has also referred to Gurucharan Kaur of Nabha v. Province of Madras2. The passage relied on by him appears at page 547 which reads as below: “The Police Act does not deal with administrative matters of the Police as a Department but with matters and duties which they in their official capacity are called upon to undertake and discharge”. On behalf of the prosecution, reliance has been placed on Public Prosecutor v. Kola Sahib of Wandiwash3, wherein the provisions of section 53 of the Act came up for consideration. It does not appear from this judgment what was the actual allegation against the Police officer; whether the false report against the Circle Inspector was by virtue of the office that he held as a Police officer or in his personal capacity. It does not appear from this judgment what was the actual allegation against the Police officer; whether the false report against the Circle Inspector was by virtue of the office that he held as a Police officer or in his personal capacity. Before I advert to the facts and arguments in the case, I may refer to the various provisions of the Madras District Police Act. Section 47 reads: “If any person shall assault or resist any Police officer in the execution of his duty, or shall aid or incite any other person so to do, or shall maliciously and without probable cause prefer any false or frivolous charge against any Police officer, such a person shall, on conviction of such offence before any Magistrate be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, not exceeding three months, or both”. Section 21 of the Act reads thus: “Every Police officer shall, for all purposes in this Act contained, be considered to be always on duty and shall have the powers of a Police officer in every part of the General Police District. It shall be his duty to use his best endeavours and ability to prevent all crimes, offences and public nuisances, to preserve the peace; to apprehend disorderly and suspicious characters; to detect and bring offenders to justice; to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace; and promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him”. The preamble of the Act reads thus: “Whereas it is expedient to make the Police force throughout the Madras Presidency a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime and to reorganise the Police force....” Thus the purpose of the Act seems to be to make the Police force a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime and also to organise the Police force. Section 21 enumerates the duties of Police officers and provides that a Police officer shall be deemed to be always on duty. Section 47 makes certain acts or allegations against the Police officer punishable in law. Not that such acts as are mentioned therein are not also punishable under the Penal Code but that they with specific reference to Police officers are punishable under this Special law. Section 47 makes certain acts or allegations against the Police officer punishable in law. Not that such acts as are mentioned therein are not also punishable under the Penal Code but that they with specific reference to Police officers are punishable under this Special law. It will be noticed that section 47 consists of three parts and in the first two parts it provides that the assault or resistance or incitement of any person against the Police officer must, in order to be culpable, be while the latter is in the execution of his duty. So far as the third part is concerned, viz., “shall maliciously and without probable cause prefer any false and frivolous charge against any Police officer” it does not in terms provide that the charge should pertain to any act in discharge of duties. But it is clear that the section would apply if the charge is against the Police officer. It would appear from the copies supplied to the accused by the Police that the complaint was that some reserve constable of Guntur was creating a scene while in a drunken state in the premises of the hall. It is therefore manifest that the charge was against the Police officer and not as a private individual. It would further appear from the story of the prosecution that the constable asked first the theatre people and then the proprietor to switch the fans. The proprietor asked him not to show his Police power and then dragged him out. His son gave some fist blows and the gate people too beat him. When the proprietor was told by one of the persons that he would be taken to task if the constable reported to the police, the proprietor himself took the initiative and informed that the police constable was drunk and was creating scene. Thus it is manifest from the story that though the constable was off duty and had come there in his individual capacity, he was warned not to show his police power, was manhandled and a charge was preferred against him as a Police officer. Having regard to the provisions of section 21 it cannot be said that the police constable merely because he entered there not as a Police officer could not be deemed to be on duty if necessity arose. His duty was also to preserve peace. Having regard to the provisions of section 21 it cannot be said that the police constable merely because he entered there not as a Police officer could not be deemed to be on duty if necessity arose. His duty was also to preserve peace. If he knew that there would be some disturbance if the fans were not set to work and had informed the person in authority it cannot be said that he was not purporting to do his duty. If the manager has asked him not to show his police power and thereafter meting out to him rough treatment, brought a charge as a Police officer which according to the prosecution is false and malicious, it cannot be said that section 47 would not apply. It would have been a case under section 182, Indian Penal Code, if it did not relate to a Police officer in whose case special law would apply. I agree that the Police Act governs only such cases as would come clearly within its scope and the provisions should be construed consistently with the purpose of the Act. The purpose is to make the police force a more efficient instrument for the prevention and detection of crime and to reorganise the Police force. I also agree that the charge levelled against the persons who are Police officers but relating purely to their situation as private individuals may not fall within the ambit of section 47. The charge did not relate purely to the constable’s domestic or social matter. The Police constable is said to have been beaten after being accused of showing his Police power i.e., while purporting to act as a Police officer and a charge which is alleged to be false or malicious was brought against him representing him to be a constable. In these circumstances, having regard to the clear wording of section 47 and purpose of the Act, I do not think that the learned Magistrate was wrong in holding that section 47 in the circumstances of the case did apply. As the finding of the Court below is limited to this I do not think it necessary to go into other points raised before me which may be canvassed before the learned Magistrate. The revision petition is therefore dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Revision dismissed.