The judgment established the importance of prescribed forms of warrants under the Indian Army Act and emphasized that the release obtained by fraudulent means did not constitute an unconditional release.

1. This is an application by one Giansingh Under Section 491, Criminal P.C. He was a Havildar Quarter Master Sergeant and was sentenced by a Court Martial to two years' imprisonment and in the middle of August 1943 was sent to the Central Jail, Jubbulpore to serve his sentence. He contends that he was unconditionally released on 27-1-1944 and was wrongfully re-arrested in the Punjab on 9-6-1946 on a requisition by the Central Provinces' Police. His contention is that his release on 27-1-1944 was an absolute and unconditional release and that he is now in illegal confinement.

2. The Crown to whom notice was given contends that the release on 27-1-1944 was obtained by means of a forged document and that the forgery was discovered very shortly afterwards as the result of which the machinery was put in motion to arrest the accused. That arrest was not effected until more than two years had passed, and it is contended that the applicant Giansingh is now in jail lawfully serving the unexpired portion of his sentence.

The Crown, on being called to answer the Case, has eventually produced the relevant documents, after a warning that they must be prepared to meet the applicant's case on 15th October, the day fixed for hearing.

3. They have produced the document on which the release was given. It runs as follows:

Subject:-- Suspension of Sentence. No. 672/Siga/23. H.Q.S.T. Cs. (I). Jubbulpore, C.P. 26th January 1944. To. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Jubbulpore, C.P. 9237 Ex-Hav. Mohd. Khurshid. No. 1. STC (I). A1873 Ex-Hav. Gain Singh No. 1 STC (I).

The parents of the abovenamed had put up an appeal to the Adjt. Gen. in India G.H.Q. (I), Simla. The A.G. has thoroughly considered their case and has finally decided and remitted twelve months rigorous imprisonment of 9237 Ex-Hav. Mohd. Khurshid and Sixteen months rigorous imprisonment of A1873 Ex-Hav. Gain Singh and such punishment will reckon from 19-6-1943, that is from the date on which the individuals concerned were placed under close arrest in Military cells.

Would you please take necessary action and inform the individuals accordingly. The letter supersedes the warrant already forwarded to you by hand on 10-8-1943. A.H. Wilson for Lt. Colonal Commandant. Signal-Training Centres (India).

4. It will be noticed that the word 'colonel' is misspelt. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that this is a genuine document and that the release of Giansingh was inspired by a judgment of the Sessions Judge of Jubbulpore delivered on 18-1-1944 in which he acquitted two civilians who were alleged to have been concerned with Giansingh in the offence for which he was convicted by Court Martial, and it is alleged that in that judgment the learned Sessions Judge expressed some doubt on the propriety Of Giansingh's conviction.

5. It is alleged that the Army Authorities took notice of this judgment and in consequence ordered the remission of 16 months' imprisonment of Havildar Giansingh. Now the date of the Sessions Judge's judgment is 18-1-1944. It is quite inconceivable that an appeal by Giansingh's parents should have been made to the Adjutant General in respect of a conviction in the previous July and that the Adjutant General could within a week of the judgment of the Sessions Judge have thoroughly considered Giansingh's case and remitted the order to the Headquarters of the Supply and Transport Corps at Jubbulpore to have the balance of the sentence cancelled.

6. It is also significant that in this egregious document Gainsingh's name is consistently misspelt and differs in spelling from the original commitment which was received in August 1943. It is astonishing that the Superintendent of an important jail like Jubbulpore should be deceived by this document. The Crown has also produced a letter from be Headquarters of the Supply and Transport Corps, Jubbulpore, stating that his letter did not emanate from their office and also a formal certificate to that effect.

7. The learned Counsel for