SHRAVAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This, petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was presented by Shravan Kumar Gupta requesting this Court for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of 8 persons Radhey Shiam, Joshi, Pujari Tika Ram, Thakur Lakhi singh, Bharat Singh, Loharey Singh, Teja Singh, Hoti Lal and Bam Singh, who were being detained in the district jail Mathura under warrants issued to the jail authorities by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata. The circumstances under which these persons were detained, as given by Shravan Kumar Gupta, are that all these 8 persons as well as the petitioner Shravan Kumar Gupta are members of the District Hind Kisan Panchayat, Mathura or the District Socialist Party of Mathura. These two parties decided to hold a Workers' Training Camp with some public meetings on the 6th, 7th and 8th of August, 1956 in village Chaumha Sub-Division Chhata, district Mathura, The place for the camp so fixed is a local compound belonging to Thakur Har Govind Singh, When the camp actually came to be held, however, it was found that that compound was not spacious enough and consequently the camp was held under a neem tree near a grove known as Bairagion Ki Baghechi. On the evening of the 7th August, 1956 Radhey Shyam and Thakur Lakhi Singh were approached by the District Magistrate of Mathura, the Superintendent of Police, Mathura, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chhata with a request that they should desist from holding their public meeting the next day under the neem tree as a meeting organised by the Congress was going to be held in Bairagion Ki Baghechi and that meeting was to be addressed by Shri Charan Singh, the Minister for Revenue. These two persons refused to comply and insisted that their meeting would be held under the neem tree. On 8th August, 1956 at about 8 a.m. all these eight persons who are under detention assembled under the neem tree and, while they were occupied in making preparations for the meeting, the station officer of police station Chhata came there with a number of constables, snatched away the mike which was being installed and flung It away. The sub-inspector and the constables shouted that they would not tolerate the audacity of any meeting being held at the instance of the detenus when another public meeting was going to be addressed by the Minister for Revenue close by. The police arrested all these 8 persons and took them in custody after dragging them along the ground and forced them into a vehicle. These persons were then taken to the police station Chhata and were confined in a very small cell wherein they were huddled together with great difficulty. On 9th August. 1956, the detenus were taken out of the police lock-up and were sent to the district jail, Mathura at about 10-30 a. m. They Were kept waiting outside the Jail. At about 3 p. m. they were admitted in the jail. In the meantime, at about 11 a. m. an application was made by one Radhey Shiam Chaturvedi, appearing as counsel for all these persons who had been detained, before Shri Tejpal Singh, sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata alleging that more than 24 hours had elapsed since the arrest of the detenus and they had not yet been produced before any magistrate go that their detention had become illegal. The prayer was that the station officer of the police station Chhata be directed to release the detenus. A further prayer made was that a note be made on the application that the detenus had not till then been produced before any magistrate. The learned sub-divisional Magistrate merely marked that application to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. Later on, at about 2-30 p.m., the same counsel on behalf of the detenus moved another similar application before the same learned Sub-divisional Magistrate and that was also sent to the Assistant Public Prosecutor for his report. It was further alleged that, even though a number of days had passed thereafter, no written order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been served on the detenus. It was contended on behalf of the detenus that they are respectable and law abiding citizens and they never behaved in any manner likely to cause even an apprehension of breach, of the peace and their conduct was throughout peaceful and non-violent. Charges were brought against the officers of the district for improper conduct on the ground that the authorities were acting in favour of the Congress party and against the parties of the detenus.

(2.) In reply to this petition, four affidavits were filed on behalf of the opposite parties. One affidavit was filed by Gopinath Varma Jailor in charge district jail Mathura in whose custody these persons were being detained. He asserted that the persons were admitted to Jail on the 9th August, 1956 at 2 p. m. under warrants signed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata directing their detention under Sections 151, 117 and 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except in the case of Bharat Singh in whose warrant the provisions of law mentioned were Sections 151 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only. The warrants originally granted a remand for five days upto the 14th August, 1956, whereafter a further remand of ten days was granted. The detenus were actually sent for production before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 25th August, 1956, and thereafter their warrant was endorsed for production on 3rd September, 1956, which was the next date fixed for hearing of the Case against these detenus. The subsequent movement and detention of the detenus which was regulated by the orders of this Court as a result of the presentation of the present petition, need not be mentioned. The second affidavit filed was by Shri Tejpal Singh, Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata, who stated that a case under Sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending against these detenus in his court and the 3rd September 1956 was the date last fixed for hearing of that case. Shri Tejpal Singh further averred that all these detenus were produced before him on the 9th August, 1956 at about 10-15 a. m. when he had told them the grounds of their detention. The third affidavit was by Shri Dharam Vir Singh, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Mathura. He admitted the receipt of the first application of 9th August, 1956 which was presented by the counsel for the detenus before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Chhata and which was forwarded to him for report by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata. He denied that any second application presented on behalf of the detenus were sent to him. Lastly, an affidavit was sworn by Ram Singh, head constable Chhata, who stated that these detenus were taken to police station Chhata at 10-15 a. m. on 8th August, 1956 & were kept in the police lock up till 8-55 a. m. on 9th August, 1956. At that time, they were handed, over to his custody to be taken to Mathura and to be produced before the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata at his residence. He, thereupon, took all the detenus to the residence of the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata and actually produced them before him at 10-15 a. m. Jail warrants for remanding them to custody were then prepared and signed by the sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata Shri Tejpal Singh. After these detenus had been produced before the sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata, they had been put in the lock up and entries with regard to that action had been made in the lock up register. Some time was also spent in serving food to the detenus before they could be taken to jail. After the receipt of the warrants from the sub-divisional Magistrate, the detenus were taken by the head constable to jail where they were handed over by him to the custody of the jailor.

(3.) In reply to these four affidavits, a rejoinder affidavit was filed by one of the detenus Lakkhi Singh. In this affidavit besides a number of points alleged in reply to the facts given in the counter affidavit, Lakkhi Singh purported to make some new allegations on a number of facts. We do not propose to take any notice of those new allegations of facts on the ground that, when this rejoinder affidavit was filed, learned counsel for the petitioners was told that these new allegations could not be considered unless an opportunity was given to the opposite parties to file counter affidavits in order to controvert those allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereupon, conceded that those portions of the rejoinder affidavit, in which new facts were alleged, should be ignored by the Court as he was not, prepared that the case be adjourned for the purpose of granting time to the opposite parties to file counter affidavits in respect of those allegations. So far as this rejoinder affidavit deals with the facts brought out in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the opposite parties, only a few points need be mentioned. It was stated in this rejoinder affidavit that the detenus had been arrested on 8th August, 1956 at about 8 a.m. and they were taken immediately to police station Chhata where they remained in the lock up till about 9 a. m. on the 9th August, 1956. It was alleged that no jail warrants were either got prepared or signed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata at any time in the presence of the persons detained. The deponent denied on behalf of all the detenus, any knowledge of any jail warrants or orders of remand procured from the Sub-divisional Magistrate Chhata in their absence. They denied that any food was served to them before they were lodged in jail. Lakkhi Singh further reaffirmed the original assertions made by Shravan Kumar Gupta, petitioner, that their actual admission in jail at Mathura took place at about 3 p. m. This assertion was made after Lakkhi Singh deponent had read the counter affidavit filed by Shri Gopinath Varma, Jailor of the District Jail of Mathura, in which it was stated that the admission in Jail took place at 2 p. m. It was, further, alleged that the authorities never cared to tell the detenus as to what specific acts they were guilty of or what offence was alleged against them for which they were being arrested. The rejoinder affidavit also contains further facts relating to what happened in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mathura on the 20th and 25th of August, 1956. There were also assertions that the record of the case pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate had been manipulated and interpolations made therein, and of the documents, particularly the two applications presented on behalf of the detenus on 9th August 1956, had been removed from the record. It was, however, admitted that on an inspection later on, the first of those two applications was found on the record. In view of these circumstances, we considered it necessary to summon the record of the case pending in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chhata and that record has also been produced before us today.