RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PEPSU NOW PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Pepsu passed in revision. The appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police who at the relevant time was the Station House Officer in-charge Shehna police station in the erstwhile PEPSU State. He was convicted under S. 193, Indian Penal Code, by a First Class Magistrate and his appeal to the Sessions Judgc, Patiala, was dismissed except as to sentence. He took a revision to the PEPSU High Court but that was also dismissed.

(2.) This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances:One Surjit Singh s/o Risaldar Waryam Singh was arrested on September 25, 1953, at Barnala in PEPSU State by the Police Inspector Jaswant Singh, He was kept in the lock-up at Barnala and on the following day his custody was handed over to the appellant and he was taken to Shehna and was kept in custody-it is not clear under what section-in the police station lock-up at Shehna. Surjit Singh was there kept in custody from September 25, 1958, till October 10, 1953, when at about 10 p.m., he was surreptitiously removed to Police Station Dialpur and then to Police Post Hamirgarh and from there was taken to Police Station Baga Purana in Ferozepur District, of the then Punjab. An application under S. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Art. 226 of the Constitution was made for a writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus in the High Court of PEPSU. In that petition it was alleged that Surjit Singh was being kept in unlawful custody without any charge being made and without obtaining a remand by a Magistrate. In reply to this, an affidavit dated October 13,1953, was filed by the appellant in which he stated that Surjit Singh had association with notorious dacoits; that he, the appellant, had never taken him into custody at any time; that the said Surjit Singh was absconding and had not been arrested in spite of the best efforts of the police; that at the time of the making of the affidavit he was not in the appellant's custody and that it was incorrect that Inspector Jaswant Singh had ever entrusted Surjit Singh to his (appellant's) custody. He also stated that no petition had been brought to him nor had he received any telegram in connection with the custody of Surjit Singh. This affidavit was affirmed as follows:

(3.) The complaint was taken cognisance of by the First Class Magistrate at Patiala who convicted the appellant and sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, The appellant took an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, who confirmed the order of conviction but reduced the sentence to one of three months' simple imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 50 and in default one month's simple imprisonment. A revision against this order was dismissed in limine by the Chief Justice although he gave reasons for dismissing it. The appellant then obtained special leave from this Court.