C.S.TIWANA, J. - (1.) SUB -Inspector Ram Kumar and constable Major Singh, who were to be tried in the Dabwali murder case, were required to be lodged as undertrial prisoners in the judicial lock up located at the Sub-Jail, Sirsa. They were found to be missing from there by A.S. Bains, J. when he paid a surprise visit to the said sub-jail. They were reported to be at Civil Hospital, Sirsa, as they were said to be suffering from certain diseases. Bains J., then proceeded to the Civil hospital and found only Constable Major Singh to be sitting in it chair. Sub-Inspector Ram Kumar was not at the premises of the civil hospital but he subsequently made his appearance there. Further inquiry by Bains, J., revealed that Dr. Karan Singh Medical Superintendent of the Civil hospital and Dr. Gulab Singh Medical Officer of that hospital had helped the said prisoners in remaining away from, the lock-up. He took cognizance of an offence of criminal contempt said to have been committed by both the prisoners and-both the doctors. It was Ch. Surti Lal, Deputy Superintendent of the sub-jail, who, on the feigned illness of the prisoners, had sent them for a medical check-up to the civil hospital. He was also proceeded against for criminal contempt as it was with his connivance that both the prisoners were able to got out of the judicial lock-up and remain at the civil hospital.
(2.) IT was mentioned in the order dated January 13, 1982, taking cognizance of the contempt committed by all the five contemners that the bail applications filed on behalf of Sub-Inspector Ram Kumar and Constable Major Singh had been rejected by the High Court and thus they were said have flouted the orders of the Court by not, getting themselves confined at, the jail promises. It was only Sub-Inspector Ram Kumar who had applied for the grant of bail to this Court and the same had been rejected. Some important legal questions have arisen before us for determination. Firstly, whether the prisoners by felgning illness ca be said to have disobeyed the orders of the different Courts in relation to their being kept at the judicial lock-up ? Secondly, whether the Deputy Superintendent of the sub Jail by sending a prisoner at his request for medical treatment, has committed an offence of contempt of Court when, as pleaded by him, he had no other course open to him but to comply with para 37(1) and (2) of Appendix.I to the Jail Manual. It provides that any prisoner desiring to see the medical subordinate shall, without delay be reported by the officer in immediate charge, of the prisoner to the Deputy Superintendent who shall, without delay, carry into effect all directions given by the medical officer or medical subordinate. Thirdly, it has to be decided whether Dr. Karan Singh and Dr. Gulab Singh, by keeping a prisoner for a longer time than required to diagnose the illness, are guilty or the offence of contempt or Court.
(3.) MR . R.S. Palta learned counsel assisting the Court has only been able to lay his hands on The State v. Vishwanath Prasad, Verma and another, AIR 1951 Patna 451(2) which according to him. would help in the determination of all the said questions. It was a case in which a Constable was tried in relation to the commission of offences under Section 343, 392 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was on bail but the same was cancelled by a Magistrate on this allegation that he was holding out the threats to the prosecution witnesses and the lawyers. A warrant had been issued for keeping him in the judicial lock-up of a certain sub-jail. On the next day of the order a complaint was made to the Magistrate that the Constable was roaming about in the Court compound. It was the Court Sub-Inspector who, having not complied with the order of the Magistrate, approached the Sub Divisional Officer for obtaining an order for the detention of the constable in a lock-up of the Court. The Court Sub-Inspector was found to have disobeyed the order of the Magistrate and for that reason he was punished for contempt of Court. The Sub Divisional Officer was released on his tendering an unqualified apology. We are of the view that the case cited above would render no help to us because it was such a case in which the order which had already been passed for detention at a certain place had intentionally not been complied with.;