BIJAI BAHADUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by four men against their conviction under Section 52, Prisons Act. There is no dispute about the facts which have been proved satisfactorily. Vijay Bahadur applicant was convicted on 8-2-1950 by a Magistrate under Sections 147 and 332, I. P. C. , and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. He was sent to the District Jail, Kanpur, to undergo the sentence of imprisonment. The other three applicants were detained since 1-3-1950 in the same District Jail in pursuance of an order issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act (No. 4 of 1950 ). The applicants have been found guilty of having disobeyed orders of the Superintendent of Jail and the district authorities, committed acts of indiscipline and assaulted the jail and police authorities on 4-3-1950. They challenge their conviction on the sole ground that they were not prisoners and were not governed by Section 52, Prisons Act.

(2.) SECTION 52 of the Prisons Act lays down that: if any prisoner is guilty of any offence against prison discipline which. . . in the opinion of the superintendent, is not adequately punished by the infliction of any punishment which he has power under this Act to award, the Superintendent may forward such prisoner to the Court of the district Magistrate or of any Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction,. . . and such magistrate shall thereupon enquire into and try the charge so brought against the prisoner and, upon conviction, may sentence him to imprisonment which may extend to one year. The only question is whether the applicants were prisoners on 4-3-50 within the meaning of this provision, it being beyond dispute that if they were, their conviction could not be challenged in revision.

(3.) AS regards Bijay Bahadur applicant there can be no doubt and it was also not disputed before us, that he was a prisoner on 4-3-50. He could, therefore, be convicted under Section 52 of the act. Before his conviction under Sections 147 and 332, I P. C. , he had been detained in the district Jail under an order passed on 29-7-1949 under Section 3. U. P. Maintenance of Public order Act of 1947, but he had been released before 28-1-50 and consequently that fact was wholly irrelevant to the question of his status on 4-3-50. His application has absolutely no merit.