The main legal point established in the judgment is that handcuffing of under-trial prisoners is an exception and should be based on justifiable reasons, judicial orders, and compliance with Supreme Court guidelines. The Court emphasized the need for recording reasons for handcuffing and obtaining judicial approval.

K. SREEDHAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) HE petitioner/accused are the under trial prisoners in S. C. 566 No/99 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, charged for committing offences punishable under S. 364a, 307, 323, 324, 342, 428 r/w S. 120-B, IPC and S. 25 (1) (a) and 27 r/w S. 3 Arms Act. During the course of trial it appears that one of the defence counsel Sri. Hasmath Pasha filed retirement memo making some personal allegations against the Special Public Prosecutor. Under the directions of this Court, the trial of this case was held on day today basis and the outer limit to dispose of this case was fixed to be by the end of March 2002. The defence counsel withdrew his participation from 23-11-2000. Thereafter no progress has been made in recording of the evidence, as some of the petitioners/accused were not represented by counsel.

( 2 ) THE present petitioner-accused submitted a grievance petition to the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 5-12-2001. In the said petitions allegations are made against the Special Public Prosecutor contending that he is not conducting the prosecution in a fair manner and evincing undue and over jealous approach. Therefore, sought the replacement of the Special Public Prosecutor. It is also alleged in the petition that the guidelines of the Supreme Court relating to handcuffing of prisoners is not being followed.

( 3 ) IT is relevant to note that the Sessions Court had passed detailed considered order on 7-11-2001 on the issue of permitting the handcuffing of the accused only for the limited period of their transit from the Prison to Court and back to prevent escape of the accused from the escort custody. It is also relevant to note that the said orders came to be passed when the accused had moved an application for a direction against the escort staff not to handcuff them. Similarly second application was made by the accused for similar relief which came to be rejected by a considered order on merits dated 28-1-2002. The learned Sesions Judge took the view that the earlier request of the accused had already rejected on merits, therefore, found that the second application is not maintainable. However, directed that the escort authorities to comply the guidelines of the Apex Court. In the present grievance petition, there is no reference to the earlier orders of the Sessions Court and there has been no revision or criminal petition filed challenging the said orders. However, as the accused are undefended under-trial prisoners at that moment, the propriety of the escort authorities handcuffing the accused during their transit from Prison to Court and back is taken up for consideration.

( 4 ) DURING the later stages of the case, Sri. Hasmath Pasha entered appearance for the accused and submitted that the allegations made against the Special Public Prosecutor are withdrawn so also the accused/petitioners submitted that they would withdraw all the allegations made against the Special Prosecutor and prayed for necessary directions to the trial Court and to the parties for expeditious disposal of the case. Accordingly, this Court issued necessary directions on 5-3-2002 and reserved the orders on the issue of handcuffing, after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the accused relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court In Re : (1) M. P. Dwivedi, 1996 SCC (Cri) 612 : (1996 Cri LJ 1670), (2) In Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v. State of M. P. AIR 1995 SC 31 : (1995 Cri LJ 508), (3) In State of Maharashtra v. Ravikant S. Patil, (1991) 2 SCC 373 : (1991 AIR SCW 871), (4) In Sunil Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1990) 3 SCC 119, (5) In Citizen for Democracy Through its president v. State of Assam, AIR 1996 SC 2193 : (1996 Cri LJ 3247) and (6) In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 526 : (1980 Cri LJ 930 ). In Prem Shankar Shukla's Case (1980 Cri LJ 930 (SC ).

( 6 ) THE legality and constitutional virus of the provisions of Punjab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document