AMARENDRA NATH DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Miscellaneous Case No. 2729 of 1975 arises on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner Amarendra Nath Das praying for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and praying why the impugned order of sentence of imprisonment ordering the detention of the petitioner in Civil Prison be not set aside and/or quashed and the detenu set at liberty forthwith and also praying for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing and/or setting aside the impugned order. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2730 of 1975 arises on an application filed by the petitioner Anil Kumar Ghosh making similar prayers.

(2.) THE facts of the two cases may briefly be stated as follows: The petitioner Amarendra Nath Das was attached to the Composite Food Laboratory, Calcutta, from January 1971 to 3rd June, 1973 and he proceeded on leave cum posting from the said Laboratory on 4th of June, 1973, and he reported to the said Laboratory on 26th July, 1973, to collect his movement order and Railway warrant and his batch number was 6636695 HAB/CIK (Store). The petitioner along with two others were sentenced by General Court Martial assembled in Calcutta. The proceeding was started on and from 12th of July, 1974. The prosecution case as made out during the Court Martial was to the following effect: On 6 -7 -1973, accused No. 3 Anil Kumar Ghosh detailed two labourers P.Ws. 10 & 11 to go to Oil Hydro Shed in POL Group and to sew 48 ting of oil Hydro in pairs in gunny bags and at about 16.30 hours on that date, the accused No. 2 Dharam Dev Singh asked the driver of the vehicle No. R.D. 19715 P.W. 1 to take the vehicle to POL Group for loading of oil hydro; the accused No. 3 Anil Kumar Ghosh gave the keys of the shed and ordered three labourers to go to oil hydro shed for loading and said tins packed in gunny bags in the said vehicle and thereafter by a gate pass the said loaded lorry moved towards Princep Ghat side where the petitioner was eagerly awaiting its arrival and thereafter the petitioner and the accused No. 2 took the vehicle to Ashokenagar, the hometown of the petitioner, where it was unloaded. The defence of the petitioner was that he had no complicity with the alleged taking out of 48 tins of oil hydro on 6 -7 -1973 on which date he was on leave as already stated above. He did hot know the accused Nos. 2 and 3 and he came to know of the alleged theft only on 26 -7 -1973 when he reported at the Composite Food Laboratory, Calcutta for his movement on transfer.

(3.) THE defence of the petitioner is that he had no complicity with the alleged taking out of the tins of oil hydro on 6 -7 -1973 and the gate pass in question which he signed was obtained from him by accused No. 2 by misrepresentation and in fact no hydro tins were issued or despatched against the said gate pass as on subsequent detection of misrepresentation the orders for issuance of stores were cancelled; the board appointed to take stock and verification of the stores did not carry out 100% stock taking at three godowns where oil hydro was stored as the board carried out stock taking in two sheds only. It was also denied by the petitioner that he ever ordered the labourers to load 24 packages in the vehicles on 6 -7 -1973 and made any confessional statement to Capt. R. Dayal.