Drafting a Missing-Person Notice Under Station Rules
You are the station-duty constable at a police station in Dimapur. At 9:20 p.m. on 12 June, a father reports that his 14-year-old son, a Class IX student, did not return from school. The boy was last seen near the railway gate at 5:30 p.m., wearing a blue half-sleeve shirt and grey trousers, about 152 cm tall, with a small scar on the left eyebrow. The officer-in-charge asks you to prepare a public notice of not more than 70 words for the station noticeboard and the local WhatsApp group. A colleague hands you this rough draft: "The boy is complained missing by his father who is very tension. He absconded from school due to family quarrel. Inform to police if anybody sees him. School name is --." Standing instructions require that notices must not speculate about the cause of a minor's absence, must not disclose the school or home address, and must carry the station landline 03862-XXXXXX along with the child's description.
1. Rewrite the notice within the 70-word limit and justify each substantive change you make.
Read the worked answer
The draft has four defects: it speculates about the cause ("family quarrel"), it uses "absconded", which implies the child left voluntarily and possibly unlawfully, it is ungrammatical ("is complained missing", "very tension", "Inform to police"), and it invites disclosure of the school, which the standing instruction forbids.
A compliant version: "MISSING PERSON: Boy, 14 years, about 152 cm, thin build, small scar on left eyebrow. Last seen 12 June, 5:30 p.m., near the railway gate, wearing a blue half-sleeve shirt and grey trousers. He has not returned home. Anyone with information may contact Dimapur Police Station, phone 03862-XXXXXX. Information will be kept confidential."
Reasoning behind the edits: "missing" is a neutral description of fact, not a conclusion about motive. "Has not returned home" states what is known and nothing more. The description allows identification without naming the school, which would let strangers approach the child there. Placing the station number last gives the reader the action to take. The word count is about 60, inside the limit. I would read it back to the father before circulation so that no detail is wrong.
2. Your colleague insists on keeping the word "absconded" because it sounds more serious. How do you respond, and what wording do you use instead?
Read the worked answer
I would explain that "abscond" is a loaded verb: it is used for a person who leaves to avoid arrest, a legal proceeding, or lawful custody. Applied to a 14-year-old who has simply not come home, it converts an unverified possibility into an official assertion, and the notice then travels on WhatsApp as if the police had concluded the boy ran away. If he later turns out to be a victim of an accident or an offence, that wording has already damaged the family and misdirected the search.
The accurate alternatives depend on what is actually known: "missing", "not returned home since 5:30 p.m.", "last seen near the railway gate". The notice should answer three questions only: who is missing, where and when he was last seen, and whom to contact. Motive, if it becomes relevant later, is a matter for the case diary after enquiry, not for a public notice. I would also point out that under the standing instruction the officer-in-charge, not the drafting constable, is accountable for the notice, so the safe course is to place both versions before him with the reasons rather than settle the dispute at the constable level.
3. The father later asks that the school's name be added so that classmates can help trace the boy. What is the correct response and reasoning?
Read the worked answer
I would acknowledge the father's anxiety, explain the rule plainly, and offer the safer alternative instead of simply refusing. The reason for the rule is that a notice naming the school tells any reader exactly where a 14-year-old studies; in a small city that is enough to identify the family, and it invites unwanted contact with the school and with other children. The same result the father wants can be achieved without the notice: the school can be informed directly through the head teacher or the local beat officer, and classmates can be questioned as part of the enquiry.
So the practical answer is: the public notice keeps only the physical description and the station number, while the school is contacted through official channels. I would record the father's request and my explanation in the general diary so that the decision is documented, and tell him who will visit the school and when. If he insists, I would put it to the officer-in-charge rather than alter an approved notice on my own. The judgement being tested is that cooperation with a distressed complainant does not extend to breaching a privacy instruction that exists to protect the child.