Dismissed

Prahalad Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Sept 2022CRMMO/756/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Section 52 of the Prisons Act. The Court held the petition lacks merit as the warning issued was not a formal punishment under Section 46 and the complaint satisfied Section 52 requirements.

What did the court decide?

The petition praying for quashing of the complaint dated 30.08.2019 under Section 52 of the Prisons Act, 1894, was dismissed.

Prahalad Kumar Vs State of Hp… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 9^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN) UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. NO. 756 OF 2019

¶3

Between:-

¶4

PARAHLAD KUMAR ALIAS RAJ KUMAR SON OF SH. BHOLU RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARBHOL, P.S. NURPUR, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P. AT PRESENT UNDERGOING RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 10 YEARS IN MODEL CENTRAL JAIL, NAHAN, H.P.

¶5

…PETITIONER

¶6

(BY SH. R. L. CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND

¶8

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA – 171 002.

¶9

2. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS & CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶10

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF JAIL, MODEL CENTRAL JAIL, NAHAN, DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P.

¶11

…RESPONDENTS

¶12

(BY SH. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL

¶13

¶14

ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH MR. NARENDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL AND MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL).

¶15

RESERVED ON : 05.09.2022 DECIDED ON : 09.09.2022

¶16

This petition coming on for pronouncement of

¶17

order this day, the Court passed the following:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶20

following relief:

¶21

“(i) That the complaint dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure P-2) filed by respondent No.3 against the petitioner under Section 52 of Prisons Act, 1894 and proceeding thereto pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. may kindly be quashed, since the same has been filed by respondent No.3 as counterblast just to save his skin and the skins of other conspirators when he came to know that on 07.08.2019 the wife of the petitioner has filed complaint to the higher authorities against the illegal acts of respondent No.3 and the wife of the petitioner has also filed Civil Writ Petition on 21.08.2019 before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh against the illegal action of respondent No.3.”

¶22

2. Petitioner is convict in more than one cases and is

¶23

undergoing sentences of imprisonment imposed upon him. He

¶24

¶25

is facing another complaint under Section 52 of the Prisons Act, 1894 (for short ‘Act’), which has been forwarded by the Superintendent Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan alleging inter alia, jail offences committed by the petitioner.

¶26

A copy of impugned complaint is Annexure P-2. The

¶27

extract of the said complaint relevant for disposal of this petition is extracted as under:-

¶28

“3. That on 1^st August, 2019 at about 12.00 noon, when counting of prisoners was in progress, convict Prehlad Kumar objected to the procedure and used abusive language to the administration and duty sentry Sh. Tilak Raj, Warder. When he was brought in Munshikhana to produce before higher officer, there also he started misbehaving and attacked on said sentry by breaking a piece of a wooden chair. The matter was inquired into by the Deputy Superintendent Jail in the evening in his office. The duty sentry was cautioned to observe restraint and patience and the convict was also warned to improve his behaviour. The convict did not mend his behaviour, on the contrary i.e. started levelling false accusations and demanding his transfer to District Jail, Dharamshala or District Jail Chamba. That the overall conduct of convict Prehlad Kumar was not satisfactory as found mentioned in his History Ticket on 05/08/2011, 07/12/2013,

¶29

¶30

05/03/2014, 16/05/2014 (copy of History Ticket as Annexure ‘D’), he is such an indisciplined person that on 05/08/2011, a SIM was recovered from his chappal, Mobile phone and a charger was recovered from his red coloured shoes and 50 grams charas was recovered from a packet of Kurkure brought by him as reported in his History Ticket by the Superintendent District Jail, Dharamshala, H.P. A criminal case was registered against the convict vide FIR No. 163/2011 u/s 20-61-85 of the ND&PS Act, P.S. Dharamshala and he was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala on 28^th February, 2013 and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of six months and to pay fine of Rupees 1000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for one month.

¶31

4. That on 1^st August, 2019 evening convict Prehlad Kumar refused to take meals and said that he is on Hunger strike but on 2^nd August, 2019 he consumed tea and bread and accepted fruits from his family on 8^th August, 2019.

¶32

5. He was referred to the Dr. Y.S. Parmar Medical College, Nahan for check-up and further management on 04/08/2019. Again on 14/08/2019 he was admitted in above Hospital and discharged on 16/08/2019 for managing the health of convict by way of force feeding if required for his survival. After starting the process of forced feeding to the prisoner, he gave up his hunger

¶33

¶34

strike on evening of 23.08.2019. Medical Health Card/documents enclosed as Annexure ‘E’.

¶35

6. That the convict Prehlad Kumar is guilty of an offence against Prison’s discipline under Section 52 of Prisons Act,1894 read with H.P. Jail Manual Para 549 as he resorted to hunger strike with effect from 01/08/2019.”

¶36

Petitioner has sought the quashing of aforesaid complaint on two grounds. Firstly, that the complaint is nothing, but a counter-blast to representation made by the wife of petitioner to various authorities against the illegal acts of Jail authorities and secondly, that the petitioner had already been warned on 01.08.2019 regarding his conduct and hence could not be tried and punished again.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

¶38

The contents of complaint Annexure P-2 reveal that there are allegations of serious misconduct and jail offences committed by the petitioner on 01.08.2019. It is alleged against him that on 01.08.2019 when counting of prisoners was in progress petitioner raised objection and used filthy

¶39

¶40

language against the officials on duty. When he was brought to “Munshikhana” and produced before higher officer, there also he misbehaved and even attacked the sentry by breaking a piece of wooden chair. The petitioner was warned. The details of the history ticket of petitioner have also been narrated in the complaint. It has also been alleged that he indulged in hunger strike for his illegal demands and thus was guilty of an offence under Section 52 of the Prison’s Act, 1894 read with para 549 of H.P. Jail Manual.

¶41

Another document on record i.e. daily diary report dated 01.08.2019 annexed as Annexure D-6, also reveals the same conduct of the petitioner and also the factum of warning extended to him.

¶42

On the strength of aforesaid warning, petitioner contends that the complaint under Section 52 of the Act is bad in law. He submits that once the warning was issued, no complaint could be filed against him.

¶43

Section 45 of the Act defines the prison offences. The allegations against the petitioner in the impugned complaint covers such offences especially as detailed in sub sections (1)

¶44

¶45

to (3) of Section 45 of the Act. Section 46 of the Act provides for punishment of such offences. One of such punishment is “formal warning”. The formal warning has been explained to mean a warning personally addressed to a prisoner by the Superintendent and recorded in the punishment-book and on the prisoner’s history-ticket. Section 52 of the Act provides that if any prisoner is guilty of any offence against prison discipline, which in the opinion of the Superintendent, is not adequately punishable by the infliction of any punishment which he has power under the Act to award, he may forward such prisoner to the Court of the District Magistrate or of any Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, together with a statement of the circumstances. On such complaint being forwarded, the Magistrate acquires jurisdiction to inquire into and try the charge so brought against the prisoner and upon conviction to sentence him to imprisonment which may extend to one year.

¶46

In the given facts of the case, petitioner cannot take benefit of the fact that he was punished under Section 46(1) of the Act. It is not his case that the warning was personally

¶47

¶48

addressed to him by the Superintendent and recorded in the punishment-book and also prisoner’s history-ticket. Otherwise also, the Superintendent of Jail in the impugned complaint has recorded that the infliction of any punishment by him under Prisons Act will not serve any purpose and require the trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 52 of the Act. This prima-facie satisfies the requirement of Section 52 of the Act. Thus, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take any benefit of the factum of warning issued to him as recorded in the daily diary report dated 01.08.2019.

¶49

Petitioner has also placed on record a complaint addressed by his wife to various officers against the jail authorities. This complaint is dated 7.8.2019. On the strength of this complaint, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned complaint is an afterthought and counter-blast to the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner. Perusal of the complaint submitted by the wife of the petitioner reveals counter allegations with respect to incident of 01.08.2019. It is mentioned that the petitioner was

¶50

¶51

mercilessly beaten on 01.08.2019 and had suffered countless

¶52

injuries. His medical was not conducted. The petitioner apprehended threat to his life. The contents of aforesaid complaint made by the wife of the petitioner can be the defence of petitioner against the allegations levelled against him in the complaint under Section 52 of the Act.

¶53

In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court will not venture into the factual aspect of the matter. The truthfulness of the allegations and counterallegations are to be proved after due inquiry or trial, as the case may be.

¶54

In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in

¶55

the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s) if any.

¶56

9^th September, 2022 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge

Prahalad Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahalad Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swarit Malhotra Vs State of Hp

Prem Chand Vs State of Hp

Nirmal Kumar Guleria Vs State of Hp

State Vs Firoz Khan

Gursharn Kaur Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Naveen Kumar Vs State of Hp and Anr.