STATE Vs. SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case under Section 25(2), Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against S. Sajjan Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer of the Public Works Department, (I.B.), of the Punjab at Police Station Anandpur Sahib, District Hoshiarpur. On 3-1-1953, Sajjan Singh who was then posted at Dedna in the District of Patiala made an application under Section 497, Criminal P.C., to the Additional District Magistrate, Sangrur. He alleged that the case against him was false and baseless and since he apprehended that if arrested in connection therewith he would be subjected to humiliation, he prayed that the Court may be pleased to accept bail from him and order him to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing personal surety. On that very day the Additional District Magistrate passed the order the operating part of which reads as follows:

(2.) It appears that sometime later the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, issued warrants for Sajjan Singh's arrest and a couple of Police Officers came to Patiala with a view to executing those warrants. They arrested Sajjan Singh on 3-2-1953 and produced him before the District Magistrate, Patiala on the following day. The Government Pleader, Patiala argued that the Police Officers were empowered to take Sajjan Singh to Hoshiarpur in their custody. Counsel for Sajjan Singh on the other hand, urged that in view of the above order made by the Additional District Magistrate, Sangrur Sajjan Singh could not be taken under arrest and he should be released. The District Magistrate spumed the arguments of the Government Pleader, ordered that Sajjan Singh be set free immediately and directed him to appear before the Special Judge, Hoshiarpur on 11-2-53. This is what he observed in the concluding part of his order:

(3.) Against this order Mr. Har Parshad, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab has put in two revision petitions, No. 89 of 1953 against the order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 3-1-1953 and No. 88 of 1953, against the order of the District Magistrate dated 5-2-1953. Since the facts and the common question of law involved in both the petitions are common they will be disposed of by one order.