Research › Browse › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

1968 DIGILAW 23 (DEL)

TULJA RAM v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

1968-02-14

I.D.DUA, T.V.R.TATACHARI

body1968
I. D. Dua,t. V. R. Tatachari ( 1 ) TULJA Ram petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a writ of habias corpus on the ground that the sentences imposed on him by the Sepcial Judge, Delhi, which have since been affirmed by this Coart and by the Supreme Court, have been served out by the patitioner and, thorefore, he is at the present momeant illegally detained in the Contral Prison, Tehar New Delhi. ( 2 ) FROM the return filed by the Superintandent, Central Prison, Tehar, it is obvious that the petitioner was convicted in three cases of corruption viz, cases Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of 1931. In case No. 25 of 1961, the petitioner was cinvicted and sentenead under section 5 (2)/5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2ool-, or in default to farther rigorous im. prisonment for two months: under section 5 (21/5 ( 1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200. 00; in default to undergo undergous imprisonment far two months: and under section 477ai. P. C. , to rigorons imprisonmenti for for one year All these three sentences were to run concarrently. ln case No. 26 of 1961 also the petitioner was sentenced under Section 5 (2)/5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. to rigorous imsrisonmant for one year and a fine of Rs. 200. 00, or in default, to farther rigoroui improsonment for two months : under section 5 (2)/5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to rigorous imprisonment for one year a. rd a fine of Ks. 200. 00 or in default, to rigorous imprisonment for two months and under section 47a. Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for one year These three sentences were also to run concurrently. In case No. 27 of 1961, be was similarly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 5 (2)/5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default to further rigorous imprisonment for two months : under section 5 (2)/5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 200. 00, in default to further rigorous imprisonment for two months : under section 5 (2)/5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Rs. 2001-, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to a fine of Ks. 200/, or in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months : and under section 477a Indian Penal Code , to rigorous imprisonment for one year. These three sentences were also to run concurrently. The sentences in all the three cases were concurrently. According to these sentences, it is conceded on behalf of the respondents that excluding the sentences of imprisonment to be under gone in default of Payment of fine, the petitioner would have served out the entire sentences on 24th January, 1968. Thereafter, he is now serving out the sentences imposed upon him in default of payment of fine. ( 3 ) IN regard to the payment of fine, the learned counsel for the petitioner has tiled to urge that fine has actually been realised from the petitioner by taking some money belonging him from the post office and that in spite of repeated request by the, petitioner, he is not being applied with full particulars of such realigation This matter is ever, beyond the scope of our enqniiy in the present proceedings . The Jail Authorities are detaining the petitioner under a valid warrant of commitment based on anorder of conviction by. a competient Court and unless information is conveyed to Jail Authorities the payment or realisation of the fine in accordance with law, the petitioners detention cannot be held to be ilegal. . the petitioner, in our opinion, should take appropriate steps to establish payment of fine to the satisfaction either of the. Court which sentenced him or to the. satisfaction of the Jall Authorities and in the proceedings we cannot hold an enqury into this allegation pursuant to a mere statyement from the bar. 4. Before councluding, we cannot help observing that in this case, the original return filed on behalf of the Jail Authorities created a somewhat unhappy impression on this Court because, according to that return, the present petitioner was stated to be liabte to he kept in custody up to 31st March, 1970. 4. Before councluding, we cannot help observing that in this case, the original return filed on behalf of the Jail Authorities created a somewhat unhappy impression on this Court because, according to that return, the present petitioner was stated to be liabte to he kept in custody up to 31st March, 1970. This return was filed on the assumption that the sentences imposed on the petitioner were not to run concurrently but consecutively. It was represented to this Court that the warrant of commitment did not show that the sentences were to run concurrently and copies of the judgement were not made available to the Superintedent of the Jail. We are informed that in spite of efforts having been made by the Superintendent of the Jail to have the matter clarified, neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Courts were helpful to him in this respect. In this connection, we do feel that the warrants of commitment were not as clear as they should have been, but the Jail Authorities also did not act with the promptitude expected of them and they took a long time to move in the matter The Presiding Officer of the Court of the Special Judge also, in our oppinion,did not pay to this matter the attention it deserved. It has been stated at the bar by the petitioner s learned counsel that he had actually forwarded copies of the judgment to the Superintendent of Jail, though this is not admitted by the counsel for the respondents. Without pursuing this matter further, we deem it our duty to impress upon all the authorities concerned that in the matters like the present the warrants of commitment must be prepared with care and attention and they must succinctly and unambiguously show to the Jail Authorities the precise scope and extent of the sentence imposed so that the convict is not detained for a day longer than the order of conviction directs, The Superintendent of Jail must also take immediate steps to have ambiguities, if any, clarified and not make wrong entries in the register in a casual and irresponsible manner. This reflects a serious lapse on his part. Liberty of the subject has to be jealously guarded in this Republic and merely because a man is covicted of an offence, does not mean that the constitutional gurantee of personal liberty in irapplicable, to his case. This reflects a serious lapse on his part. Liberty of the subject has to be jealously guarded in this Republic and merely because a man is covicted of an offence, does not mean that the constitutional gurantee of personal liberty in irapplicable, to his case. It is not only citizens of this Republic, but all persons on its soil who are guaranteed protection of life and personal liberty, of which they cannot be deprived except according to procedure established by law. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we hold that the petitioner has not been shown to be illegally detained at the present moment and we dismiss this petition, leaving it open to him to secure his release either by paying fine or by establishing with the authorities concerned that the fine has been paid or realised.