PHILIP JOHN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. To be heard today.

(2.) The learned Advocate-General waives service of the Rule on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner is a prisoner undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Model Central Jail at Nahan. It appears that he was brought and lodged in the Sub-Jail, Kaithu, at Shimla for undergoing medical treatment at the Snowdon Hospital, Shimla, sometime in the month of April 1984. On April 11, 1984 the custody of the petitioner was handed over to two police constables named Thina Ram and Hem Raj at about 10 A.M. for taking him to the Snowdon Hospital for medical check-up. Those two constables handcuffed the petitioner while taking him to the Hospital and even while he was medically examined by Dr. M.L. Sharma, Associate Professor, Department of E.N.T., Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, he was in handcuffs. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that when he was produced before Dr. M.L. Sharma, he directed that the handcuffs be removed. However, the constables refused to remove the handcuffs stating that they had been directed not to do so. Dr. M.L. Sharma in the course of his affidavit has denied this allegation. However, the fact that the petitioner was handcuffed while being taken to the hospital and while he was examined by Dr. M.L. Sharma and also while being taken back to the Sub-Jail, Kaithu, is not in dispute. The petitioner has prayed that the respondents be committed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having committed contempt by acting in utter disregard of the directions issued by the Supreme Court to the effect that rule regarding the prisoner in transit is freedom from handcuffs and that the exception will be restraint with irons to be justified before or after.