STATE CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH TOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision has been filed by the Chandigarh Administration against two orders passed by Shri K.C. Gupta, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh; one dated 23.3.1984 passed exparte and the other dated 28.3.1984 passed on refusing to review the earlier exparte order.

(2.) IN the wake of the incarceration of four Akali leaders sarvshri Surjit Singh Barnala, Balwant Singh Ramuwalia, Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Randhir Singh Cheema, the respondents herein, who are under trials under section 188, Indian Penal Code, and section 2 of the prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, the District Jail Authorities, Burail, Chandigarh, were required to regulate their interviews with their friends and relatives in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Jail Manual. In working thereof, dissatisfaction was expressed by the respondents to the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh when he went to inspect the jail on 23.3.1984 by presenting an application an extract of which is reproduced below:-

(3.) THE orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate tended to throw open a very wide debate. His power to pass such orders was itself questioned. The strength of paragraph 559-A of the Punjab Jail Manual also needed testing whether it was a statutory provision or a mere executive instruction. The learned counsel for the parties, however, have played cool and have confined their attention to only one point, that is, about the number of persons to be present at the time of biweekly interview. Whereas the learned Special Public Prosecutor disputes the assertion of the respondents that only two persons are permitted at the time of such interview the learned counsel for the respondents asserts that not more than two persons are allowed at each interview, causing frustration to a large number of friends and relatives, which each respondent has. And whereas the Special Public Prosecutor asserted that availability of 10 relative and friends on the day of the interview enjoins now the Jail Superintendents grant each respondent their audience to him at the cost of the rights of other under-trial population, due for such facilities under the Punjab Jail Manual the learned counsel for the respondents asserted that by curtaining the figure at 10 the order tended to be in favour of the Chandigarh Administration.