- (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. These two criminal revisions arise out of judgment and order dated 8-3-1984 passed by the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Kan pur in Criminal Appeal No. 196 M of 1983, Ranjeet Singh @ Dabbu, Kallu Singh and Chhotey Singh v. State. Criminal Revision No. 719 of 1984 was filed by Chhotey Singh while Criminal Revision No. 800 of 1984 was filed by Kaloo Singh. Since both the revisions have been filed against the same judgment, they are connected and are being disposed of by a common order. Criminal Revision No. 719 of 1984 shall be the leading case.
(2.) THE admitted position is that on the relevant date and time, the revisionists were lodged in jail at Kanpur under the provisions of MISA (Maintenance of In ternal Security Act ). It is alleged that in the night of 30-6-1976 and 1-7-1976, the revisionists along with others out the grat ing" of barrack No. 20 by an iron cutting blade (Aari ). THEy came out of the barrack No. 20 through the opening made by cut ting the granting and crossed the boundary wall of barrack No. 20 and when they were tried to jump over through the main protective wall of the jail, they were ap prehended by jail guard Sri Chandra Pal, who raised an alarm which attracted other guards. THE revisionists as well as other detenues were over- powered and prevented from escape. THE other jail authorities also appeared at the scene of occurrence. THE case was registered against them and they were charged for committing the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 224, IPC. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, recorded the statements of P. Ws. in support of the prosecution case. Ac cused simply denied the allegations against them. Taking the totality of the circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, into consideration the learned Magistrate held guilty the revisionists for the offences under Sections 120-B/224, IPC. According they were convicted and each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count on 1-7- 1983 in Criminal Case No. 7388 of 1979. The sentences were or dered to run concurrently. The revisionists along with one Ranjeet Singh @ Babbu preferred an ap peal against their conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur being Criminal Appeal No. 196/m of 1983, Ran jeet Singh " (o> Babbu, Kallu Singh and Chhotey Singh v. State. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur vide his judgment and order dated 8-3-1984 dismissed the appeal and af firmed the conviction and sentences as ordered by the trial court.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved, against the or ders passed by the courts below both the above mentioned revisions have been filed in this Court. I have heard Sri S. P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned Counsel for the State. h. The teamed Counsel for the revisionists argued that for the conviction under Section 224, IPC it was essential to establish that the accused was charged with an offence in pursuance of which they were detained whereas the revisionists in this case was not detained for committing any offence of Section 120, IPC and, there fore. Section 224, IPC was not attracted. I find force in the argument and uphold the plea. 7. However, the offence under Sec tion 225, IPC is clearly made out. The revisionist had entered an agreement to commit an illegal act of escaping from custody with other co-accused. They are, therefore, guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 225-B, IPC. An attempt to escape from any custody in which the accused is lawfully detained is punishable under Section 225-B, IPC. The detention of the revisionists under the provisions of MISA was a lawful custody. So for the attempt to escape from the lawful custody (MISA), the offence under Section 225-B is made out. On this point, i find no force in the contrary argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the revisionists. The argument is accord ingly rejected. 8. The learned Counsel for the revisionists further urges that it is very old case and the occurrence took place in 1976 and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken. I agree with the said submission. 9. The revisions are dismissed with the modification that while maintaining the conviction of the revisionists their sen tences are reduced and instead of serving the sentence of one year's rigorous im prisonment as awarded by the trial Court on a charge under Section 224, IPC and upheld by the appellate court, the revisionists shall undergo three months simple imprisonment on a charge under Section 225-A, IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Revisions dismissed. .;