JAIKALA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application was made by the husband of the appellant seeking Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension. In that he held out that he remained underground from the date of granting bail till discharge in the year 1943 and sought to establish the same on the basis of the copy of Case No. 505/25 of 1942. The said case suggests that there was an incident on 18th August, 1942 pertaining to making a public road inaccessible. In relation to the said incident. on 25th November, 1942 a charge -sheet was filed naming the husband of the appellant as one of the accused persons. It further appears that on 28th November, 1942 a direction was issued for issuance of proclamation, if not already issued. The said copy of the said case further establishes that the husband of the appellant was discharged. In such view of the matter, by the decision dated 21st August, 2000 the application of the husband of the appellant was rejected on the ground that the copy of the said case discloses a decision to issue proclamation against the husband of the appellant but does not establish that proclamation was in fact issued. It was next contended that inasmuch as it is the case of the husband of the appellant that he obtained bail, question of his remaining underground after getting bail did not arise. Lastly, it was contended that as the husband of the appellant was discharged in the said case, he was not in jail.

(2.) BEFORE us it was contended that the husband of the appellant remained underground for a period in excess of six months and that sufficed. The incident is of 18th August, 1942 and the decision to issue proclamation is dated 28th November, 1942. The dates when the husband of the appellant applied for and obtained bail are not available. There is, therefore, nothing on record which would suggest that, in fact, the husband of the appellant remained underground for more than six months. Although a decision was taken to issue proclamation but the fact that a proclamation was, in fact, issued has not come on the records of the said case. That apart, the date of obtaining the bail is also not available. In a situation of this nature, it would not be possible for us to hold that the husband of the appellant has established the fact that he remained underground for a period in excess of six months.

(3.) AFTER dictating the above order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while two persons were convicted on 13.4.1943 it was recorded that absconders are wanted and inasmuch as the name of the husband of the appellant figures as an absconder in Columns 6 and 7, it must be held that upto 13th April, 1943 the husband of the appellant was an absconder. The document does not say so. The words "absconders wanted" have been mentioned under Column 8 on 13th April, 1943. Under Column 8 the names of those absconders, who were then wanted have not been furnished. It would, therefore, not be possible for us to hold that even on 13th April, 1943 the husband of the appellant was an absconder. Having had represented in the application that the husband of the appellant had obtained bail, it was obligatory on the part of the husband of the appellant to show the date of his arrest and the date of his obtaining bail. That being not there, we would not advise ourselves to assume the things in the manner the learned counsel for the appellant wanted us to assume the same.