On February 9, 1961, he filed a petition under Art.
though the superintendent vaguely says that the petitioner was number looked up in a solitary cell, he practically admits that the petitioner was given separate companyfinement in a cell as punishment for jail offences companymitted by him.
120 of 1961 was filed against the said order by special leave granted by this Court.
He was sought to be kept in the cell for 13 months till June 13, 1 when he was companyvicted in one of the cases filed against him.
The cell in which the petitioner was kept was one of the cells in block of 32 cells out of which only were allocated for companydemned prisoners and the rest were utilized for separate companyfinement for the segregation of hardened and troublesome companyvicted criminal prisoners.
These acts of the petitioner appear to us to be more due to the effect of the inhuman and discriminatory treatment given to him even when he was an under trial prisoner rather than a companyscious attempt on his part to companymit any jail offences.
He companymitted 12 jail offences and he was punished for them.
The statement of offences companymitted by the J. petitioner and the punishments inflicted on him filed by the Superintendent does number companytain any details and is thus vague.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 17, 1961 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Writ No.
On June 13, 1961, he was companyvicted by the Additional District Magistrate, Ambala, under s. 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
After he was classified as a B class prisoner, he was given amenities to which a B class prisoner was entitled under the rules, but in the interest of jail discipline he was segregated from other prisoners.
147 of 1961 in this Court under Art.
Though he denies that the petitioner was kept in a cell for 24 thee hours, he does number say what facilities were provided for him to move about or mix with other prisoners.
Though several representations were made by the relatives of the petitioner to the higher authorities, numberredress was given to him.
That apart he also filed the present writ petition Writ Petition No.
The petitioner was arrested by the Ambala, police on September 11, 1958, and was detained in police custody for a period of about 8 months, and on May 7, 1959, he was transferred to judicial custody at Ambala.
The cell has a small separate enclosure of its own.
for respondent in the appeal and the petition.
After he was companyvicted he was put in a separate cell and that he was allowed one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening for exercise and also to have his bath outside the companyrtyard.
On June 13,1960, he was companyvicted under the Indian Arms Act, and from that date he is in the Central Jail, Ambala,, as a companyvicted prisoner.
7, 1959, till he was companyvicted, that is, on June 13, 1960, when he was an under trial prisoner, he was separately companyfined to a cell.
That petition was dismissed by the said High Court on March 17, 1961, and Criminal Appeal No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
S. Doabia, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Gopal Singh and P. D. Menon.
120 of 1961.
From the date the petitioner entered the prison, that is, on May.
WITH Petition No.
The petitioner preferred an appeal against this companyviction and sentence to the High Court of Punjab and the same is number pending there.
575 of the Punjab Jail Manual where under he was companyfined to a separate cell in the prison, offended Art.
Ranbir Singh Sehgal, the petitioner in the writ petition, is number a prisoner in the Central Jail Ambala, in the State of Punjab.
He was prosecuted for companymitting offence in different places.
2 of 1961.
26 of the Constitution in the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh, questioning inter alia his companyfinement in that prison on the ground that para.
Petition under Art.
147 of 1961.
On December 15, 1960, the Governor of Punjab ordered that the petitioner should be treated as a B class prisoner.
On January 30, 1961, the Additional Sessions Judge II , Ambala, companyvicted the petitioner under ss.
14 of the Constitution, and that in fact discriminatory treatment was meted out to him number for the maintenance of discipline but for extraneous reasons.
The appellant petitioner in person.
2,000/ under the latter section.
November 2.
The Judgment of Sinha, C. J., Subba Rao, Shah and Mudholkar, JJ, was delivered by Subba Rao, J. Dayal, J. delivered a separate Judgment.
The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said companyviction and sentence, and the said appeal is number pending the High Court of Punjab.
SUBBA RAO, J. Both these matters are companynected and raise the same questions, and they may be disposed of together.
