TULJA RAM Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tulja Ram petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a writ of habias corpus on the ground that the sentences imposed on him by the Sepcial Judge, Delhi, which have since been affirmed by this Coart and by the Supreme Court, have been served out by the patitioner and, thorefore, he is at the present momeant illegally detained in the Contral Prison, Tehar New Delhi.

(2.) From the return filed by the Superintandent, Central Prison, Tehar, it is obvious that the petitioner was convicted in three cases of corruption viz, cases Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1931. In case No. 25 of 1961, the petitioner was cinvicted and sentenead under section 5(2)/5 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2OOl-, or in default to farther rigorous im. prisonment for two months: under section 5(21/5( 1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200.00; in default to undergo undergous imprisonment far two months: and under section 477AI.P.C., to rigorons imprisonmenti for for one year All these three sentences were to run concarrently. ln case No. 26 of 1961 also the petitioner was sentenced under Section 5 (2)/5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .to rigorous imsrisonmant for one year and a fine of Rs. 200.00, or in default, to farther rigoroui improsonment for two months : under section 5 (2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for one year a.rd a fine of Ks. 200.00 or in default, to rigorous imprisonment for two months and under section 47A. Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year These three sentences were also to run concurrently. In case No. 27 of 1961, be was similarly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 5(2)/5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default to further rigorous imprisonment for two months : under section 5(2)/5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2001-, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Ks. 200/, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months : and under section 477A Indian Penal Code , to rigorous imprisonment for one year. These three sentences were also to run concurrently. The sentences in all the three cases were concurrently. According to these sentences, it is conceded on behalf of the respondents that excluding the sentences of imprisonment to be under gone in default of Payment of fine, the petitioner would have served out the entire sentences on 24th January, 1968. Thereafter, he is now serving out the sentences imposed upon him in default of payment of fine.

(3.) In regard to the payment of fine, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tiled to urge that fine has actually been realised from the petitioner by taking some money belonging him from the post office and that in spite of repeated request by the, petitioner, he is not being applied with full particulars of such realigation This matter is ever, beyond the scope of our enqniiy in the present proceedings'. The Jail Authorities are detaining the petitioner under a valid warrant of commitment based on anorder of conviction by. a competient Court and unless information is conveyed to Jail Authorities the payment or realisation of the fine in accordance with law, the petitioners detention cannot be held to be ilegal. .the petitioner, in our opinion, should take appropriate steps to establish payment of fine to the satisfaction either of the. Court which sentenced him or to the. satisfaction of the Jall Authorities and in the proceedings we cannot hold an enqury into this allegation pursuant to a mere statyement from the bar.