RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by Ranbir Singh Sehgal at present confined in Central Jail, Patiala. He has made the following prayers in his petition: (1) That proceedings in case F. I. R. no. 84, dated the 14th September, 1958, Police Station, Chandi Mandir, under Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act, pending in the Court of Shri B. D. Thapar, Magistrate First Class, Ambala, be quashed or alternatively it may be ordered to be tried by the Sessions Judge and disposed of within a reasonable time, which this Honourable Court may be pleased to fix, (2) That his appeal against his conviction and sentence to five years under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, pending in this Court (Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 1960), may be considered independently and disposed of on the merits as early as possible, and (3) That para 575 of the Jail Manual be declared ultra vires the Constitution, being repugnant to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is further pleaded in this connection that para 575 also conflicts with para 510 of the same Manual. It is further stated in this connection that the petitioner is being virtually subjected to solitary confinement, which is outside the jurisdiction of the jail authorities, and which can only be the subject-matter of a sentence by a Court and is controlled by Section 73, Indian Penal Code. In this context, he has also made a grievance that he is not being allowed to mix with his co-accused, who has also been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, and that he and his co-accused are not being afforded facilities even for the purposes of filing joint appeal and other allied matters. He has prayed that suitable relief in this connection be granted by this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner has pleaded that he was arrested in the two cases already mentioned on 14th September, 1958, on the basis of alleged recovery of certain arms and explosives from a house in village Kajheri, district Ambala, and that thereafter he has remained in police custody for about eight months in violation of the provisions of Section 167 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, his remand having been procured on insufficient or frivolous pleas. He admits that he was sent to judicial custody on 7th May, 1959. Again, he has made a grievance that no challan was put into the Court for nearly 14 months and that it was on 2nd November. 1959, that two separate challans, one under the Arms Act and another under the Explosive Substances Act were put into Court; the petitioner has in this connection suggested that these two cases should have been tried jointly and not separately. After giving some more facts, it is stated that on 13th of June, 1960, the petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of seven years plus Rs. 4,000/- fine in both the cases. He filed two separate appeals against his conviction and sentence, one in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ambala, and the other in this Court. The appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge was according to the petitioner, not heard for some time and the insinuation is that the Public Prosecutor managed to obtain adjournments on one ground or the other, with the result that the adjudication of the appeal was delayed. In the meantime, the appeal in this Court came up for hearing on the 5th of October, 1960, but R. P. Khosla, J. ordered that the same may be set down for hearing after the disposal of the appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge. I have not been able to find any such formal order, but in the written statement filed on behalf of Hari Ram, this assertion is admitted to be correct. On 10th October. 1960, the appeal in the Court of the Sessions Judge was heard by Shri H. D. Loomba, Additional Sessions Judge, who set aside the conviction and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and remanded the accused back to the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Ambala, for cross-examination of four witnesses for the prosecution. The teamed Additional Sessions Judge, according to the petition, ordered expeditious disposal of the case fixing 24th of October, 1960, for appearance in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate. In spite of this order, the case has not so far been disposed of and that at the time o the Sing of this petition in this Court, it was pending in the Court of Shri B. D. Thapar, Magistrate First Class, Ambala. The petitioner has stated that he is fully convinced that the learned Magistrate has been acting in collusion with the prosecuting agency in delaying the disposal of the case and it is with this apprehension in his mind that he intimated to the learned Magistrate that an application for transfer was going to be moved in the High Court. As a result of this intimation, the learned Magistrate adjourned the case to 16th February, 1961, and discharged the witnesses. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has made the prayers in this Court as mentioned earlier.

(3.) IN so far as the criminal case remanded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, and pending in the Court of Shri B. D. Thapar is concerned, the learned Additional Advocate-General has given an undertaking that the case would be disposed of with expedition and promptitude and he expects the case to be set down for hearing next week. In view of this undertaking, I Jo not think it is necessary to pass any order as prayed by the petitioner. No sufficient ground has been made out for its transfer to this Court or to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, I may, however, emphasise that in this Republic, Courts of justice are expected never to behave in a manner which would give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the accused person that the Court is unduly favouring the prosecution. Justice, as has very often been repeated, must not only be done, but it must also seem to have been done. In the present case, in spite of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the case should be disposed of expeditiously the learned Magistrate does not seem to have paid the attention, which the case demanded. Every accused person is entitled to have an | expeditious trial of the charges against him and this is so, irrespective of the seriousness of the allegations. Unless the law itself draws a distinction, every accused person is entitled to be treated without any undue discrimination, however distasteful his activities may be to the executive.