Jaswant Singh Verma vs Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow and Others

Hari Swarup, J.

This petition has been filed for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner. The petitioner is lodged in the District Jail, Lucknow. Learned Government Advocate has appeared and has produced a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow by which the petitioner has been convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Panal Code and has been sentenced to four years'' rigorous imprisonment. The learned counsel contended that the judgment could not be a ground for refusing the petitioner the writ of habeas corpus as the judgment suffers from illegalities. We do not think it is within the scope of this petition to examine the legality of the judgment of the Sessions Court as the same is appealable to this Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Our examining the judgment is not only likely to prejudice the petitioner but can also not be appropriate as the validity of the judgment cannot be judged except by looking the evidence and the material placed in the case before the Sessions Judge. The judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the petitioner and imposible the sentence of imprisonment on him cannot be ignored and, in our opinion that is sufficient return and justification for the keeping of the petitioner in jail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Prasad (A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 575) and urged that even though the man has been convicted and sentenced a writ in the nature of habeas corpus could issue. In that case after the person had been convicted and sentenced and lodged in jail he was released by the order of the District Magistrate owing to his ill health. The State Government had not challenged the release of the convict by the District Magistrate but had tried to justify the rearrest of the person. It was found by the Supreme Court that the State Government had failed to show the authority for his rearrest. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any lawful authority for the rearrest of the convict a writ could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution for his release. In effect, it was the District Magistrate''s order directing the release, which was not challenged by the State Government, was given effect to. Such is not the situation in the present case. The petitioner has been put in jail under a warrant and is now liable to remain therein until the execution of the sentence passed in the criminal case is suspended or set aside.

Learned counsel also urged that the petitioner should not be permitted to go to Bombay for being lodged in the jail at Bombay. The facts in relation to this matter are that the petitioner was to be tried for certain offences in a criminal court at Bombay and was confined in jail at Bombay in connection with the crimes for which he was to be tried in Bombay. He had been brought from the Bombay jail to Lucknow jail for his prosecution in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Lucknow. Requisition was received from the Superintendent of Jail at Bombay requesting for the retransfer of the petitioner to Bombay in case his trial at Lucknow had ended and he was no longer required so that his trial in Bombay may proceed. In these circumstances we do not find any reason for issuing a writ to direct that the petitioner should not be sent back to Bombay from where he had come. It has also been stated by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner has already been sent to Bombay in pursuance of the demand made by the Superintendent of Jail at Bombay.

In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed.