lant in which he stated that Surjit Singh had association with numberorious dacoits that he, the appellant, had never taken him into custody at any time that the said Surjit Singh was absconding and had number been arrested in spite of the best efforts of the police that at the time of the making of the affidavit he was number in the appellants custody and that it was incorrect that Inspector Jaswant Singh had ever entrusted Surjit Singh to his appellants custody.
50 and in default one months simple imprisonment, a revision against this order was dismissed in limine by the Chief Justice although he gave reasons for dismissing it.
In that petition it was alleged that Surjit Singh was being kept in unlawful custody without any charge being made and without obtaining a remand by a Magistrate.
45 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated February 22, 1956, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, in Criminal Appeal No.
An application under s. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and under Art.
In reply to this, an affidavit dated October 13, 1953, was filed by the appel.
As both the parties admitted before the High Court that Surjit Singh was number in the custody of the appellant the petition was dismissed.
19 of 1957.
This appeal has arisen in the following circumstances One Surjit Singh, s o Risaldar Waryam Singh, was arrested on September 25, 1953, at Barnala in PEPSU State by the Police Inspector Jaswant Singh.
On November 9, 1953, the brother of Surjit Singh made an application under s. 476, Criminal Procedure Code, for the prosecution of Inspector Jaswant Singh and the appellant for perjury under s. 193, Indian Penal Code, in that they had filed false affidavits.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 7, 1956, of the former PEPSU High Court in Criminal Revision No.
He was kept in the lock up at Barnala and on the following day his custody was handed over to the appellant and he was taken to Shehna and was kept in custody it is number clear under what section in the police station lock up at Shehna.
The appellant took an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, who companyfirmed the order of companyviction but reduced the sentence to one of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
This affidavit was affirmed as follows I solemnly affirm that the facts stated from paras Nos.
The appellant then obtained special leave from this Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
175/36 of 1955 56.
226 of the Constitution was made for a writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus in the High Court of PEPSU.
Pritam Singh Safe, for the appellant.
He was companyvicted under s. 193, Indian Penal Code, by a First Class Magistrate and his appeal to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, was dismissed except as to sentence.
S. Bindra and T. M. Sen, for the respondent.
April 21.
He took a revision to the PEPSU High Court but that was also dismissed.
The appellant was a sub Inspector of Police who at the relevant time was the Station House Officer in charge Shehna police station in the erstwhile PEPSU State.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered,by KAPUR, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of PEPSU passed in revision.
He also stated that numberpetition had been brought to him number had he received any telegram in companynection with the custody of Surjit Singh.
Surjit Singh was there kept in custody from September 26, 1953, till October 10, 1953, when at about 10 p.m., he was surreptitiously removed to Police Station Dialpur and then to Police Post Hamirgarh and from there was taken to Police Station Baga Purana in Ferozepur District, of the then Punjab.
