Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 697 (PAT)

Chhatu Singh v. State of Bihar

1996-10-15

AFTAB ALAM, N.N.SINGH

body1996
ORDER 1. In our experience this is the most extra-ordinary petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner from illegal custody. And we sincerely and earnestly hope that we may not come across a similar petition in future. 2. The petitioner is a citizen of India. He was in jail serving out his sentence on the basis of the judgment and order dated 18.8.1993 passed by Shri Bal Govind Prasad, IIIrd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S.T. No. 8 of 1991. By the aforesaid judgment the petitioner was convicted of the offence under Section 376/34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He preferred an appeal against the trial court judgment which was registered in this court as Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1993 (R). The petitioner's appeal was disposed of by this court by judgment and order dated 29.8.1995 (Copy at Annexure-1). By this judgment though the conviction of the petitioner was maintained his sentence was reduced from 10 years rigorous imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. 3. Though the judgment and order of this court was passed on 29.8.1995 the petitioner was not released from jail for more than a year and he was, therefore, compelled to approach this court by filing this writ petition on 20.9.1996. I n this writ petition it was stated that though he was not required in any other criminal case, he was not being released despite the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this court on his appeal. 4. When the writ petition was first taken up for admission on 24.9.1996 we thought that the petition was based on misstatement of facts and in case the petitioner had not been released from jail he must be required in some other criminal cases. We, however, adjourned the case for two days and asked the Joint Registrar of this court to look into the matter. On 26.9.1996 when the case was re-listed for admission we called for a report from the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi explaining the circumstances in which the petitioner was not released from jail even after the judgment and order passed by this court on his appeal. 5. On 26.9.1996 when the case was re-listed for admission we called for a report from the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi explaining the circumstances in which the petitioner was not released from jail even after the judgment and order passed by this court on his appeal. 5. The report of the Judicial Commissioner (at Flag 'B') and the Joint Registrar's report submitted to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, (at Flag 'C') and the Chief Justice's notes on the report are now before us and we feel quite devastated to find that the statements made in the writ petition were quite true and the petitioner has not been released from the jail simply because his release order though sent from this court to the trial court and duly received there was not forwarded by the trial court to the jail authorities. 6. From the two reports it comes to light that after the judgment and order passed by this court on 29.8.1995 the release order was sent to the court of the IIIrd Additional Judicial Commissioner and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi vide memo. nos. 11861 and 11862 dated 31.8.1995. The release orders were received in the Civil Court on 1.9.1995 and were delivered in the office of the IIIrd Additional J.C., Ranchi and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 2.9.1995. In the office of the IIIrd Additional J.C. the release order was received by Shri Mangal Oraon, the Office Clerk of the court and in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi the order was received by Shri Anwar Alam, the G.R. Clerk of the court. In the court of the IIIrd Additional J.C. the release order received from the High Court was put on the Supplementary records of the case and yet neither the Presiding Officer took any notice of the release order received from this court nor the matter was put up before him by the Office Clerk or the Bench Clerk of the court. From the reports it appears that at the material time Shri Bal Govind Prasad was the IIIrd Additional J.C., Ranchi. He superannuated on 31.1.1996 handing over the charge of that court to Shri Basudeo Ram. From the reports it appears that at the material time Shri Bal Govind Prasad was the IIIrd Additional J.C., Ranchi. He superannuated on 31.1.1996 handing over the charge of that court to Shri Basudeo Ram. We find it quite incomprehensible that neither Shri Bal Govind Prasad nor his successor officer Shri Basudeo Ram took any notice of the release order and the judgment and order passed by this court which too, after some time, was received there. 7. From the report of the Judicial Commissioner it further appears that Shri Matla Tigga was the Bench Clerk in the court of the IIIrd Additional J.C. and according to the report Shri Mangal Oraon, Office Clerk and Matla Tigga, Bench Clerk were responsible for the petitioner Chhatu Singh not being released from jail. 8. To us it appears beyond any doubt that the petitioner could not be released from jail and was kept in illegal custody for more than a year simply because the Judicial Officers in charge of the court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the office staff attached to that court sat over the matter. They thus trifled with a citizen's most valuable right of personal freedom for the reasons best known to them. Their action in not despatching the necessary release order to the jail authorities can be viewed from many angles. It is clearly a gross case of dereliction of duty but that aspect of the matter is the least of our concern, and we leave that to be suitably deat with by their respective disciplinary authorities. What we are concerned with is that by suppressing and sitting over the release order issued by this court they caused interference with and obstruction to the administration of justice by this court and their action thus plainly constitutes criminal contempt of court within the meaning of Section 2(c) (iii) of the contempt of Courts Act and for which they are liable to be punished in accordance with law. 9. Further, by their action they have put the State, their employer, in a position where the State is made to face the charge of infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and for this they may be liable to be punished as well as directed to pay punitive costs to the petitioner. 10. 9. Further, by their action they have put the State, their employer, in a position where the State is made to face the charge of infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and for this they may be liable to be punished as well as directed to pay punitive costs to the petitioner. 10. Their action further amounts to causing illegal confinement of the petitioner and for this too they may be liable to be punished in accordance with law. 11. We thus find that (1) Shri Bal Govind Prasad who was the III Additional Judicial Commissioner at the material time, (2) Shri Basudeo Ram who took over charge of the court from Sri Bal Govind Prasad on 1.2.1996, (3) Shri Mangal Oraon, Office Clerk in the court of the IIIrd Additional Judicial Commissioner, (4) Sri Matla Tigga, Bench Clerk of the IIIrd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and (5) Shri Anwar Alam, G.R. Clerk in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi are prima facie answerable to this Court on the aforesaid counts. 12. We, accordingly, direct that notices be issued to the aforesaid persons to show cause why appropriate proceedings may not be drawn up against them and why should they not be suitably punished and made to pay damages and costs to the petitioner if found guilty of the aforesaid charges. The notice shall be accompanied with a copy of this order. The show cause, if any, must be filed by 22.11.1996. 13. Notice to (1) Mangal Oraon (2) Matla Tigga and (3) Anwar Alam may be served through the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi; the addresses of (1) Bal Govind Prasad and (2) Basudeo Ram may be obtained from the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi or from the administrative office of the High Court. 14. List this case for admission on 26.11.1996.