C SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the judgment dtd. 11/10/2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, upholding the judgment and order dtd. 8/8/2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby the petitioner was convicted under Sec. 223 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs.100.00 and in default of payment thereof to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that FIR in the instant case had been registered on the statement of Head Constable Sukhjit Singh to the effect that on 19/5/2005 he along with Constable Sucha Singh, Constable Harpal Singh, Constable Satnam Singh, Constable Dharam Singh, Constable Hardeep Singh, Constable Nand Lal and lady Head Constable Vijay Bala, was on duty for production of 14 prisoners/convicts alongwith Satnam Singh @ Satta, before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Baba Bakala. The learned Judicial Magistrate was on leave on that day. Therefore, the accused persons had been brought from Central Jail, Amritsar to the District Courts, Amritsar for their production before the Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. Complainant-H.C. Sukhjit Singh had handed over the custody of the accused persons with their handcuffs to the various police officials, who had come along with him and also gave them proper instructions. One of the accused, namely Satnam Singh @ Satta was to be produced in case bearing FIR No. 76, dtd. 30/5/2004 under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC, at Police Station Beas alongwith another accused, named, Gurdeep Singh son of Batna Singh, who was to be produced in another case registered under Sec. 306 IPC at Police Station Beas, Amritsar. While the complainant went inside the court room to deliver the warrants, during that period the custody of both the accused was handed over to Constable Satnam Singh along with the handcuffs. However, when the complainant came back from the court room, he was informed that Satnam Singh @ Satta had escaped from the custody of the accused-petitioner. Thus, the petitioner/accused had, while performing his duty, acted negligently.

(3.) Satnam Singh @ Satta, who had escaped from the custody, could not be arrested and was later on declared as a proclaimed offender by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar on 15/9/2006.