HAMID RAZA Vs. SUPDT CENTRAL JAIL REWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been sent by the convict Hamid Raza who was undergoing jail sentence in Central Jail, Rewa, claiming Rs. 14,860/- as damages for his illegal detention and interest @ 10% per month on the amount assessed. He has also requested for giving the assistance of an Advocate as an amicus curiae. Accordingly Shri D.M. Dharmadhikari appeared as amicus curiae and Shri S.L. Saxena, Govt. Advocate, appeared for the State.

(2.) The petitioner was prosecuted under S.395/397 in Sessions Trial No.40 of 1978 and under section 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No.42 of 1978 in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa. Both the cases were consolidated and tried together and the petitioner was convicted under Ss.395 and 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for four years on each count, both the sentences to run concurrently as per judgment delivered on 11-11-1978. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.1288 of 1978 which was dismissed on 29-4-1981. However, in the warrant which was sent to the Central Jail, Raipur for execution of the sentence, the Addl. Sessions Judge failed to mention that both the sentences were to run concurrently. In the absence of there being any mention that the sentences are to run concurrently, the jail authorities treated the sentences to run consecutively and even after completing four years of jail sentence, the petitioner was not released. So he filed Misc. Cr. Case No.1231 of 1984 in this Court which was disposed of on 4-8-1983 directing that the two sentences are to run concurrently and if the sentences passed against the petitioner have been completed he shall be released forthwith. Accordingly the petitioner was released on 8-8-1983. In the meantime, he sent this petition from jail on 27-7-1983 which was received here on 3-8-1983.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that since both the sentences were to run concurrently, the petitioner completed his sentence in the month of June 1981, including the detention period during trial and the remissions earned; the petitioner has not been released even after the expiry of 743 days after the sentences were already completed; the petitioner was a tailor and used to earn on an average Rs. 10/-per day; during his illegal incarceration the petitioner lost his parents and his family is almost ruined; the petitioner deserves to be compensated for the loss of earning with penal monetary award for the illegal detention. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 14,860/- with interest @ 10% per month for his illegal detention for 743 days. In the return filed by the State it is contended that in the warrant issued by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge there was no mention that both the sentences were to run concurrently and consequently the jail authorities treated that the sentences were to run consecutively, therefore, there was no fault on the part of the jail authorities nor there was negligence; since the order of the High Court in Misc. Cr. Case No.1231 of 1983 dated 4-8-1983 was received on 8-8-1983 the petitioner was released immediately on the same day; the petitioner completed his jail sentence on 14-5-1982 and not in June 1981 as contended by him and his detention from 15-5-1983 (1982?) to 8-8-1983 was unauthorised; that the mistake was of the clerk concerned who prepared the jail warrant; the Court functions under sovereign power of the State and if any wrong has been done by the sovereign the petitioner is not entitled of any compensation and the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.