STATE Vs. CHANDRA BALI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six appeals are against the order passed by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Deoria, acquitting the respondents in each case of an offence punishable under Section 52 of the Prisons Act (Act IX of 1894). Chandrabali Singh is the respondent in Govt. Appeal No. 1599 of 1957 while Brijraj Singh, Raj Kishore, Sardar Ambrik Singh, Krishna Lal and Ugrasen Singh are the respondents in Govt. Appeals Nos. 1600, 1601, 1602, 1603 and 1604 respectively.

(2.) The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. The respondents who are members of the Socialist party, were admitted in the district Jail, Deoria, under Section 188 I. P. C. on the 29th September, 1956 at 9.15 a.m. after being sent from the court of Sri G. P. Misra, Magistrate first class, Deoria, as undertrials. The charge against them was that when in jail as undertrials they refused to take food stating that they were on hunger strike from outside. According to the testimony of Sri Badri Prasad Misra, Jailor, District Jail, Deoria, who was on duty on the aforesaid date, on their admission into the jail he offered food to them but they refused to take it as they were on hunger strike. Sri Badri Prasad warned them that it was an offence not to take meals inside the jail and read out paragraph 742 of the Jail Manual to them.

(3.) The first instance of refusal to take food was on the 29th September, 1956 at midday. The Superintendent of jail also came in the meantime. Both of them went to barrack No. 3 where the accused were lodged. But in spite of their persua-tion the accused did not take either the evening meal of 29th or the first two meals of the 30th September, 1956. They, however, took their meals in the night of that day. In view of the persisting refusal of the accused to take their meals on the 29th the Jailor made a note on the history ticket of every accused to the effect "Refusing to take food" and underneath it the Superintendent of jail wrote: "Warned that this is a major jail offence under jail rules and he is liable to prosecution." On the morning of the 30th a complaint was sent by the Superintendent, District Jail, Deoria to the District Magistrate of that district which ran as follows: