GURPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GURPAL Singh petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana, under section 224, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs/- 50 in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. His co-accused Mohinder Singh Constable was also convicted under section 225, Indian Penal Code, and a similar imprisonment was imposed upon him for the said offence. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, Thereafter, the present Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner, with a view to impugn the aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated are that the petitioner along with his co-accused Constable Mohinder Singh was prosecuted with the allegation that on August 14, 1981, the petitioner had escaped from lawful custody of his co-accused when the former was under arrest and was to be produced in some cases pending against him. It was stated that Mohinder Singh co-accused produced the petitioner in the Court of Session on that date and then in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. Head Constable Sham Lal Incharge Bakshi Khanna kept on waiting for the return of the petitioner and his co-accused, but both of them did not turn up. A search was made as a result of which Mohinder Singh co-accused was found by the Head Constable at the Police Lines, Ludhiana, where he told the Head Constable that when he was taking the petitioner to the Central Jail, Ludhiana, the latter had run away from his custody in hand-cuffs. A first Information Report was, therefore, registered in regard to the incident on August 14, 1981 at about 10 p.m. However, on the very next day, i.e. August 15, 1981, Head Constable Sadhu Singh, posted on traffic duty produced the petitioner before Head Constable Karam Singh.

(3.) ON the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the default of the petitioner in not surrendering himself till the next day, which was occasioned on account of a drinking both (about) in which his co-accused had participated, the petitioner should not be visited with a severe punishment of one year's Rigorous Imprisonment. It is also submitted that the petitioner has since been acquitted in all the cases in which he was prosecuted at the relevant time. I am inclined to agree, with the learned counsel on the question of sentence. The custody of the petitioner was primarily the responsibility of his co-accused who was a police official. The escape of the petitioner is more or less technical. The sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner is, therefore, reduced to the period of confinement already undergone by him. However, his sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- and one month's Rigorous Imprisonment in default of payment thereof, are maintained. If the fine has been paid and the petitioner is not required in any other case, he shall be released.