JUDGMENT Banerji, J.
1. This is an application for revision on behalf of one Balaram Dikshit, who was a Sub-Inspector of Police in the Shahjahanpur district. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 29 of the Police Act on two charges, viz., that he had wilfully neglected his duty and in spite of the orders of the Superintendent of Police he failed to prosecute under Section 216, I.P.C., Bachche Khan and Abdul Ahad Khan, as ordered by the Superintendent of Police in writing on 25th May 1925; secondly, he wilfully disobeyed the order of the Superintendent of Police in falling to appear before him immediately, as ordered by him on 29th June 1925.
2. Balram Dikshit was Station Officer of Police Station Kalan in the Shahjahanpur district. On 29th May 1925, Mr. Crawford, Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, saw him and ordered him to go back to his thana and at once register and send up for trial a case under Section 216 against Bachche Khan and Abdul Ahad Khan in whose house two persons Lalla Khan and Ahmed Nabi Khan had been arrested. This verbal order was followed up by an order in writing; and on the order, which is marked Ex. B, the petitioner recorded a note as follows:
Janab Ali, Muttala hua intizame mela Dhai Ghat tamil hukme huzoor hogi.
3. This is dated the 1st June. Balram Dikshit did nothing until the 17th June, when he sent a note to the Head Constable in charge of the Thana at the time to record a case.
4. At the trial he pleaded that in not recording a report he exercised a discretion inherent in a Police Officer, and therefore he had not wilfully disobeyed any lawful order. The Courts below have repelled his contention; and it is argued on his behalf before me that the Superintendent of Police had no lawful authority to direct a Sub-Inspector to register a case and send up for trial any accused person. I am not able to accept this contention. Under para. 12, Ch. 1 of the Police Regulation, the Superintendent is the head of the Police force of the District, and he is responsible for the proper performance of their duty; and I am of opinion that under Section 157, Criminal P.C., and para. 94, Ch. 10 of the Police Regulations, it was the duty of the Sub-Inspector to forthwith record a case. He had, therefore, in my opinion wilfully neglected to carry out the lawful order of the Superintendent of Police. He was, no doubt, bound to investigate into the case; and, as the order of the Superintendent was that he should chalan the accused, I am of opinion that it was his duty to report the result of his investigation to a Magistrate. He has, therefore, in my opinion been rightly convicted. As regards the second charge he has not very much to say. He was bound to obey the order of the Superintendent of Police and to act according to the directions given to him.
5. Whether the authorities will take a very serious notice of this conviction or not is of no concern to me. I am only concerned with the legal aspect of the case, and I am of opinion that he has been rightly convicted, I dismiss his application.