IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sanjay K. Agarwal, J.
Sunderlal Patel - Petitioners
Versus
The High Court of Chhattisgarh, through the Registrar General - Respondents
Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 29 of 2014
Decided On : 11-04-2016
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(i)(ii) (B) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Infringement of their fundamental right - Protection of life and personal liberty - Monetary compensation - Illegal detention - Complaining infringement of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e. protection of life and personal liberty, petitioners herein, who are two in numbers, have filed this writ petition stating inter alia that they have been unlawfully and illegally detained by respondents No.2 and 3 for 113 days depriving them of their personal liberty and therefore, they are entitled for monetary compensation from respondents jointly and severally, and also seek a direction for holding departmental action for illegal detention against respondent No.2/respondent No.3 - Writ petitioners have sought above-stated reliefs on the following factual backdrop - Held, Court opinion of this Court, that is not sufficient when personal liberty of any individual or of a person, who has been directed to be released by Court, is involved – Court hope and trust that upon receipt of copy of this order, respondent No.1 High Court of Chhattisgarh in its administrative jurisdiction would do well to prevent recurrence of such an event in future and to further consider feasibility of making a foolproof system to ensure, where a sentence is modified or reserved in appeal by this Court, warrant is signed and issued by Court to which appellate judgment or order is certified under Section 425 Code of, 1973, expeditiously without loss of time as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 315 of Criminal Courts-Rules and Orders read with Rule 768 of Jail Manual to avoid any such embarrassment to all concerned - Writ Petition allowed.
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
Father of our Nation said: -
“To deprive a man of his natural liberty and to deny to him the ordinary amenities of life is worse than starving the body; it is starvation of the soul, the dweller in the body.”
“Mahatma Gandhi”
2. Complaining infringement of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. protection of life and personal liberty, the petitioners herein, who are two in numbers, have filed this writ petition stating inter alia that they have been unlawfully and illegally detained by respondents No.2 and 3 for 113 days depriving them of their personal liberty and therefore, they are entitled for monetary compensation from the respondents jointly and severally, and also seek a direction for holding departmental action for illegal detention against respondent No.2/respondent No.3.
3. The writ petitioners have sought the above-stated reliefs on the following factual backdrop: -
3.1. The petitioners herein were charge-sheeted and prosecuted for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(i)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in Special Case No. 1/2011. The Special Judge (NDPS) respondent No.2 herein by its judgment delivered on 27-7-2011 convicted them for the above-stated offence and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five years and further sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to further undergo RI for six months.
3.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied against the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded for five years and fine, the petitioners preferred criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC before this Court bearing Cr.A.No.657/2011 titled as Sunderlal and another v. The State of Chhattisgarh.
This Court ultimately upon hearing to the parties, delivered judgment on 18-6-2013 and upheld the conviction but the jail sentences awarded to the petitioners were reduced to the period already undergone by them.
3.3. In compliance of the judgment of this Court as required under the criminal rules and orders, the Registry of the High Court by its memo dated 25-6-2013 endorsed the copy of the judgment duly certified to the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Janjgir-Champa - respondent No.2 herein and to the respondent No.3 herein - Superintendent of Central Jail and also to the petitioners herein through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bilaspur for information and necessary action. The certified copy of the judgment of this Court (High Court) was duly received in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS)/respondent No.2 herein, but no release/super-session warrant was issued directing the jail authorities to release the petitioners upon the jail sentence held to be undergone by this Court and thereafter, some how, the petitioners made an application only on 9-10-2013 before the Court of Session, Janjgir-Champa and on the same day, they were released, but in the meanwhile, from 18-6-2013 to 8-10-2013 = 113 days, they remained in jail, even though their jail sentences were reduced to the period already undergone, by this Court.
4. The petitioners herein feeling aggrieved by the said detention, have filed this writ petition alleging that their illegal and unlawful detention of 113 days after the jail sentence having been held to be undergone by the High Court, is clearly unauthorised and has occurred on account of carelessness on the part of the Presiding Officer of respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 which resulted in violation of their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for which they are entitled for monetary compensation from the respondents particularly, respondents No.3 and 4, and an appropriate departmental action be directed to be initiated against the official respondents who may be found responsible for negligence in duty and illegal detention of the petitioners. It has been further pleaded that the petitioners have suffered monetary loss on account of their illegal
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das
Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Delhi Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress
Francis Corallie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Dubai Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Salaam
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta
M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn
P.A. Narayanan v. Union of India
Saheli, a Womans Resources Centre v. Commissioner of Police
Smt. Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.