PRABIR KUMAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner Prabir Kumar Das is an Advocate and claims to be a human rights activist. He has filed this writ petition praying for a direction upon the State of orissa to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to the victim pratap Naik in the facts and circumstances mentioned herein below:

(2.) PRATAP Naik was an accused along with others in Sessions Trial No. 47 of 1989 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Phulbani and was found guilty under Sections 147, 337, 323 read with Section 149, IPC. He was also found guilty under Section 302, IPC. On account of conviction on all these counts, pratap Naik was sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years, six years, one year and life respectively and the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the present case this Court is not concerned with the sentences which were awarded against other accused persons. Thereafter an appeal registered as Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1990 was filed by Pratap Naik and others jointly in this Court while all of them were in jail. During pendency of that appeal. Pratap naik was granted bail by this Court by its order dated 31. 1. 1991, but he could not file the bail-bond in view of his financial stringency. Ultimately this Hon'ble Court was pleased to set aside the conviction and sentence of Pratap Naik and all others by a judgment and order dated 31. 10. 1994. The said judgment and order of this Court was sent to the Sessions Judge, Phulbani vide a memo, dated 8. 12. 1994 and the same was received in the office of the Sessions Judge, phulbani on 17. 1. 1995. But, Pratap Naik was not released from custody though he was acquitted by this Hon'ble Court vide its judgment and order dated 31. 10. 1994. Ultimately Pratap Naik was released from illegal detention by order of the Session Judge, phulbani only on 22. 1. 2003. Therefore, pratap was kept in detention illegally from 1. 11. 1994 till 21. 1. 2003, which is for more than eight years. About said illegal detention of Pratap Naik, Sessions Judge, phulbani passed an order on 25. 1. 2003 to the following effect:

(3.) THE petitioner, being a human rights activist states that he took up the cause of pratap Naik as Pratap was not aware of his right and because of his poverty and ignorance he was not in a position to assert his human rights which are fundamental rights under the Constitution. The petitioner claims to have initially written a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court praying for an inquiry into the illegal detention of Pratap Naik and seeking compensation for the same. That letter was received by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on 14. 1. 2005, but nothing happened. The petitioner thereafter claimed to have met Pratap Naik and his parents at Ghimuhani and came to know about his suffering and the plight of his family. The petitioner has annexed the photographs about his meting with Pratap Naik. The petitioner thereafter sent a petition dated 18. 1. 2005 to the Hon'ble Chief justice of Supreme Court praying for initiation of some inquiry and seeking compensation for the victim. The petitioner also addressed a letter to the Assistant Registrar (PIL Cell ). Supreme Court of India on the aforesaid subject. The petitioner was informed by the registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18. 3. 2005 that nothing can be done on the petition written by him as the same was not made under the PIL guidelines and the petitioner was advised to move the High Court of Orissa. Thereafter the petitioner on 23. 3. 2005 filed a PIL before this Hon'ble court which numbered as W. P. (C) No. 4149 of 2005 seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs and for direction of an inquiry for the illegal detention of Pratap Naik for the purpose of fixing the responsibilities on the erring persons. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 12. 4. 2005, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner cannot maintain the petition as he is a stranger. Ultimately against the said order of this Hon'ble Court, an SLP was filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme court and the SLP was numbered as SLP (Civil) No. 12943 of 2005. The SLP came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to pass an order on 18. 7. 2005 whereby the SLP was dismissed, but the petitioner was given liberty to file a fresh writ petition before the High Court of Orissa and it was made clear that the High Court would dispose of the matter on merits without being influenced by its previous order. Thereafter the present petition was filed.