Back
2014 Supreme(Guj) 325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
AKIL KURESHI and SONIA GOKANI, JJ.
JUBEDABEN RANABHAI JUNEJA - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1437 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4402 of 2010 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1438 of 2010 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4403 of 2010
Decided on: 05/02/2014
Advocate Appeared
MR ANAND B GOGIA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BB GOGIA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RB GOGIA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JAIMIN GANDHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1-4
The duty of police constables to prevent the escape of an accused from custody is a serious responsibility, and negligence in this duty can lead to conviction and dismissal from service.
Headnote:
Negligence - Police Custody - IPC 225A - Summary: The case involves the conviction of two lady constables for negligence in allowing an accused to escape from custody. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the duty of the constables to prevent the escape. The court also rejected arguments for leniency based on previous cases and the pending appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, lady constables, were convicted for negligence in allowing an accused to escape from custody. They were dismissed from service, and their appeals were also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction and dismissal, emphasizing the seriousness of the offense and the duty of the constables to prevent the escape.
Issues: Conviction for negligence in allowing an accused to escape from custody, dismissal from service, and pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The seriousness of the offense and the duty of the constables to prevent the escape justified the conviction and dismissal. Previous cases and the pending appeal did not warrant leniency.
Final Decision: The Letters Patent Appeals were dismissed.
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. These appeals arise out of common background. We may therefore, notice facts as emerging from Letters Patent Appeal No.1437/2010.
2. The appellant Jubedaben Juneja at the relevant time was engaged as a Head Constable (GradeI) and was posted at Gondal police station. Appellant of Letters Patent Appeal No.1438/2010 Indumati Jobanputra was head constable posted at the same police station. One accused lady who was arrested in connection with the offences punishable under sections 379, 511 read with 114 of the IPC, was kept at the house of the said lady constables on 6.10.1993. As per the appellants since there was no facility available with Gondal police station to keep a lady accused in lockup, she was brought to the house of Jubedaben and later on kept at the house of Indumati for custody. On 7.10.1993 at about 6 O’ clock in the morning, the accused escaped. A criminal case in this respect was filed in which ultimately both the lady constables were shown as accused of having committed offences punishable under sections 224, 225A and 225B read with section 114 of the IPC.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondal, by his judgment dated 17.8.2004 passed in Criminal Case No.519/1994 convicted both the accused constables for offence punishable under section 225A of the Penal Code and sentenced them to simple imprisonment for six months. He imposed fine of Rs.250/each.
4. We may notice that section 225A of the IPC prescribes punishment in case the person being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to apprehend, or to keep in confinement any person in any case not provided for in section 221, section 222 or section 223 or any other provision of law, omits to apprehend that person or suffers him to escape from confinement. The punishment prescribed under the said section is in two parts. Part (a) thereof provides for imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, if the act is done intentionally. Part (b) prescribes punishment for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine, if the act is done negligently. We may also record that learned JMFC, Gondal, came to specific conclusion that the act of the accused lady constables was not intentional, but that they had demonstrated negligence.
5. Such judgment of the learned Magistrate was challenged by the accused. A common appeal was filed before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 31.7.2007. Against such judgement of the Sessions Court, the appellants also approached the High Court, The revisions petitions were also dismissed.
6. After the learned Magistrate recorded conviction against the accused, the department issued a show cause notice dated 25.10.2004 calling upon Jubedaben why she should not be dismissed from service in view of her conviction in a criminal case. In response to such show cause notice, appellant Jubedaben filed a detailed reply dated 7.11.2004. She contended that she had filed appeal before the Sessions Court against the judgment of the trial Court which is pending. Order of dismissal would ruin her financially and would be an excessive punishment. She had to keep the accused at her residence because there was no facility in the police station for such purpose. In any case, the offence for which she is convicted, is not one of moral turpitude. The disciplinary authority however, passed order dated 18.12.2004, dismissing Jubedaben from service. He gave detailed reasons for not accepting her contentions. In particular, he placed heavy reliance on the conviction of Government servant and the fact that in terms of section 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, based on such conviction, a major penalty could be imposed. He did not agree that pending appeal before the Sessions Court, no disciplinary action should be taken.
7. The order of dismissal was challenged by Jubedaben before the depart
