AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Singh, Mani Singh, Tarsem Singh and Mohinder Singh, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 4 dated 4.1.1991 registered under Sections 223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station Bassi Pathana (Annexure-P.1), order dated 27.3.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure-P.3) taking cognizance on the police report, order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure-P.4) directing framing of charges under Section 223 I.P.C., charge-sheet dated 11.5.2000 (Annexure-P.5) and order dated 28.11.2000 passed in Criminal Revision No. 7-T/7.8.2000 by the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure-P.8) affirming the orders dated 27.3.1998 and 11.5.2000 of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fatehgarh Sahib.

(2.) THE present case came to be registered on the statement of Assistant Superintendent, Sub Jail, Bassi Pathana. According to his version, Balwinder Singh resident of Dellon, District Ludhiana was confined as under-trial in case bearing FIR No. 91 dated 20.10.1990 registered with Police Station Bassi Pathana under Section 382 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in Sub Jail, Bassi Pathana on 4.1.1991. On that day, aforesaid Balwinder Singh was successful in making escape from the Sub-Jail. As this escape had resulted due to the intentional aid of the accused or their intentional suffering of the aforesaid accused to escape, the present case was registered against the accused. Out of four petitioners, petitioner No. 1 was posted as Head Warder while petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were posted as Wardens in the said sub jail.

(3.) THE prayer made on behalf of the petitioners was opposed on behalf of the respondent. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondent that the Police report was entrusted to Constable for presentation in Court on 13.11.1992 but the file was lost by ASI Ashok Kumar. The same was subsequently re- constructed and then put in Court. The learned Court from the above facts construed that the delay in filing the police report had been explained in the report filed under Section 173 of the Code and for that reason it needed to be condoned and cognizance was taken against the accused. Consequently, the charges were ordered to be framed against the accused as per order dated 11.5.2000 under Section 232 I.P.C. In the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioners, the Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib came to the conclusion that letting an under-trial escape from custody due to the negligence is a serious offence irrespective of the quantum of punishment provided under the law and for that reason extension of limitation under Section 473 of the Code ordered by the trial Court cannot be said to be unjustified, arbitrary or without sufficient cause and for that reason the order called for no interference and the revision was dismissed on 28.11.2000. Hence, the present petition.