Das, J.

1. This application is directed against the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer of Ranchi, convicting the petitioner under Section 29, Police Act, and sentencing him to three months, rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner was an Officiating Sub-Inspector of Police, his permanent post being that of a Head Constable. The Superintendent of Police heard a report that the son of the petitioner was a non-co-operator and he sent for the petitioner and asked him "to put his son right." The petitioner replied that he had no control over his son, whereupon the Superintendent of Police retorted that if he could not control his son, he would have to consider whether he would retain him as an Officiating Sub-Inspector, as in his view, "a man who could not control his son could not obviously control his thana." This happened on the 15th November last, and on the 16th November the petitioner tendered his resignation of the post which he held in the police force. On the evening of the same day an order signed by the Superintendent of Police was communicated to him which ran as follows:--"Officiating Sub-Inspector Parmanand Lal is reverted to his substantive rank of grade writer head constable with effect from the 16th November, 1921, a. m. He will proceed to the Thathaitangar Police Station within 48 hours." It is admitted that Thathaitangar Police Station is about 80 miles from Ranchi, and about 40 miles from the nearest railway station, and although under the Civil Service Regulations six days are ordinarily allowed to an officer for making preparation for a journey on transfer, the Superintendent of Police thought that 48 hours were all that the petitioner was entitled to for making his preparations for a difficult journey including a journey of 40 miles from the nearest railway station. In my opinion the order was an unreasonable one, as it was difficult, if not impossible, for the petitioner to obey it. That, however, was the position on the evening of the 16th November, but on the morning of the 18th November, another order was served on him to proceed to Thathaitangar within 24 hours. If this was an order on which the petitioner could act then he had 24 hours from the midday of the 18th November, to obey it. He was however suspended on the 19th November, and the decision to prosecute him under the Police Act was taken that day. Now the question that arises for consideration is which order is it that the petitioner has disobeyed The case for the prosecution is that he should have obeyed the order of the 16th November, Exhibit 2, which was served on him on the evening of the same day, and that he should have left Ranchi for Thathaitangar sometime on the 18th November. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer agreed with the contention of the prosecution and convicted the petitioner of having disobeyed the order of the 16th November. As, in my opinion, the order of the 16th November was an unreasonable one. I must critically examine the record to see whether any justification can be found for the conduct of the petitioner in not complying with that order, and, in my view, that justification can be found in the order which was served on him on the 18th November and which asked him to proceed to Thathaitangar within 24 hours. If the latter order in effect cancelled the first order which was served on him, then it cannot be argued that the petitioner was guilty of a wilful breach or neglect of a lawful order made by a competent authority in not leaving Ranchi for Thathaitangar sometime on the 18th November, for under the latter order he had 24 hours from the morning of the 18th November, to obey it. The learned Magistrate took the view that the latter order was also dated the 16th November, and that 24 hours was a mistake for 48 hours. It is true that that order Exhibit A was issued on the 16th November, but it passed through various departments and was ultimately served on the petitioner on the 18th November. It bears the endorsement of the Reserve Inspector, dated the 18th November, and that the endorsement ran as follows:--

Copy forwarded to W.H.C. Parmanand Lal through Town Inspector for information and compliance.

In my opinion, it is not an unreasonable view that the order served on the petitioner on the morning of the 18th November, in effect cancelled the order which was served on him on the evening of the 16th November, and the petitioner cannot be convicted of having disobeyed the order which was first served on him.

2. But then it was argued that he did no leave Ranchi on the 19th November, and that he disobeyed the order served on him on the 18th November. But it was not the case of the prosecution that there was disobedience by the petitioner of the order served on him on the 18th November. If it were, it might be possible for the petitioner to show that he was in fact suspended before he could carry out that order. He was in fact suspended on the 19th November, and the only question is whether he was suspended in the forenoon or in the afternoon of the 19th November. If he was in fact suspended in the forenoon of the 19th November, then the order of suspension prevented him from carrying out the order served on him on the 18th November, while there was still time to carry it out. But it is unnecessary to deal with this point, as it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner disobeyed the order served on him on the 18th November. The case for the prosecution is that the petitioner disobeyed the order served on him on the evening of the 18th November. As, in my opinion, the petitioner might reasonably have taken the view that the order served on him on the 13th November in effect cancelled the order of the 16th November, I must set aside the conviction and the sentence massed on the petitioner. The petitioner will be released from his bail bond.