IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari – Appellant
Versus
Inder Singh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13667 of 2013
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Compensation - Illegal Detention - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Section 302, Section 304 Part II of the IPC - Rule 315 of the Criminal Courts Rules and Orders - Rule 768 of the Jail Manual
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was illegally detained in prison for almost 4 years after his sentence was modified. He sought compensation for the violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner was illegally detained for an extended period, resulting in a violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty. The State Government was directed to pay him compensation of Rs.3 lakhs.
Issues: The main issue was whether the State Government or its officers were responsible for the illegal detention of the petitioner and if he was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the defence of sovereign immunity is not available when the State or its officers infringe a person's fundamental right of life and personal liberty. It also emphasized the responsibility of the Court and jail authorities in issuing release warrants and directed an inquiry into the delay in issuing the modified warrant.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the State Government was directed to pay the petitioner compensation of Rs.3 lakhs. An inquiry was also ordered to investigate the delay in issuing the modified warrant.
ORDER
1. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to pay him the compensation for his illegal detention for almost four years in jail.
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner is a poor villager, resident of Village Pathari, Police Station Bhichuva, District Chhindwara. The FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Vide judgment dated 14.03.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.176/2004, the petitioner was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/- in default of fine further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 14.03.2005 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal which was registered as Cr.A. No.845/2005. Vide judgment dated 25.09.2006 Court modified the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as mentioned in para-7 of the order as under:-
7- 'In the circumstances of the case and considering the nature of injury, we are of the opinion that this is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside and he is convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only)'.
4. On 04.10.2006, the judgment dated 25.09.2006 passed in Cr.A. No.845/2005 was dispatched by registered post to the Superintendent, District Jail, Chhindwara as well as the District and Sessions Judge, Chhindwara.
5. This Court vide order dated 16.06.2022 had directed the counsel for the State to call for the records of the Central Jail, Chhindwara in respect of receipt of the judgment and action taken thereof. The report dated 11.07.2022 has been produced before the Court along with certain documents. The Registry of this Court had written to the District Judge, Chhindwara to send the records pertaining to the dispatch of the order from the District Judge Chhindwara for enabling this Court to come to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner would be entitled for compensation or not. The District Sessions Judge, Chhindwara vide letter dated 05.07.2022 has not sent the relevant record in respect of receipt and dispatch of the letter but has sent the ordersheet dated 01.06.2012 by which super-session warrant has been issued.
6. Thus, in the normal course, even if the petitioner did not deposit the fine, he ought to have been released on 25.09.2009. But he was not released. Neither modified warrant, as required under Rule 315 of the Criminal Courts Rules and Orders was issued by the Court concerned for his release nor the jail authorities approached the Court in this regard. The petitioner was finally released after almost 3 years 11 months and 5 days of illegal detention on 02.06.2012 (as per report) when the letter dated 26.05.2012 was sent by Shri Arun Vishwakarma, Advocate Jabalpur along with the copy of the judgment dated 25.09.2006, the Superintendent, District Jail, Chhindwara, informed the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara pursuant to which modified warrant was issued. The petitioner, shattered by his prolonged illegal detention for no fault of his, has therefore approached this Court for being compensated by the State Government on the ground of violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute or any doubt that the petitioner was detained illegally in prison for almost 3 years 11 months and 5 days even after his sentence was reduced in Criminal Appeal by this Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to illegal incarceration in Jail for no fault of his by the State Government or by its Officers or by the Concerned Court.
8. Learned counsel for the petiti
The judgment established the principle that illegal detention and malicious prosecution by the police warrant the grant of compensation under the public law remedy, emphasizing the violation of funda....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the continued detention of a convict beyond the period of sentence, without any other case pending against them, violates their right to pers....
Illegal detention without due process violates Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting compensation for the affected individual.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'Public Law Damage', which empowers constitutional courts to award compensation under public law to redress grievances arising fro....
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.