K UMAPATHY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL CUDDAPAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a junior counsel who appeared in Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 1994 on the file of this Court which was disposed of by orders dated 20-4-1995. That appeal arose out of a judgment of the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 270 of 1993 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Chittoor. One Sri Ganachari Annadurai and Sri Ganachari Chinnabba were tried for offences under Section 302, I.P.C. and Section 304 r/w Section 34, I.P.C. respectively. The learned Sessions Judge convicted both the persons for the said charges respectively levelled against them and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. The Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 1994 was allowed by this Court in respect of Ganachari Chinnabba and the sentence imposed upon him was set aside and he was directed to be set at liberty forthwith by the said orders D/- 20-4-1994. However, the said appellant Ganachari Chinnabba was not released from the Jail and continued in custody. The above writ petition is filed for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the custody of Sri Ganachari Chinnabba Accused No. 2 in Cr. No. 66 of 1992 of Chittoor Taluk Police Station even after acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 1994 by this High Court as illegal and for a further direction for release and for award of damages for retention in the illegal custody from 21-4-1995.

(2.) A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Sri. T. Janardhan Rao, Jailer, Central Prison, Cuddapah. It is stated in the said Counter affidavit that the respondent No. 1 was not aware of the verdict of this Court D/- 20-4-1995 in Crl. Appeal No. 991 of 1994. On enquiries made by the deponent of the Counter affidavit, it was revealed that the judgment copy in question had been sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rajahmundry and Superintendent, Central Jail, Warangal who have no concern with the said prisoners. The prisoners in question were undergoing sentence at Central Prison, Cuddapah and the name of the said Central Prison is not mentioned in the copy of the judgment. The deponent addressed a letter to the Office of the High Court D/- 1-7-1995 for sending a copy of the said judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 1994 and a reminder letter D/- 18-7-1995. At the same time, the Superintendents, Central Prisons, Hyderabad, Warangal and Rajahmundry were also requested for transmitting the judgment copy in Crl. Appeal No. 991 of 1994. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Warangal vide his letter No. JC2/8702/1995, D/- 22-7-1995 received on 28-7-1995 forwarded a copy of the said judgment and thereupon the convict was released on the same date itself. It is stated that the unfortunate circumstances, reference to which has been made above, the judgment copy was not received and respondent could not therefore release the said prisoner and immediately has taken necessary steps for releasing the prisoner, no sooner the copy was received from the Superintendent, Central Prisons, Warangal.

(3.) A Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Registrar (Judicial), Andhra Pradesh High Court, Respondent No. 2 wherein reference has been made to Rule 124 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. It lays down that the Memorandum of Criminal Appeal other than an appeal presented to the Jail Officer shall have to indicate the name of the jail in which the appellant is lodged on the date of filing of criminal appeal before the High Court. It is further stated in the said Counter affidavit of Respondent No. 2 that when the petitioner presented Criminal Appeal No. 991 of 1994 in the Registry of High Court on 24-10-1994 along with a Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3685 seeking Bail on behalf of the appellants pending appeal, the criminal section of the High Court Registry endorsed the following objection :