Purshottam Singh Vs. Superintendent, Central Prison

Purshottam Singh vs Superintendent, Central Prison

Disposition Application dismissed Court Allahabad Decided May 17, 1949

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/447434

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/447434
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Malik, C.J. and ;Sapru, J.
Decided On: May 17, 1949
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Case No. 466 of 1949
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CANTONMENTS ACT[C.A. No. 41/2006]. Section 346 & Cantonment Fund (Servants Rules, 1937, Rules 13, 14 & 15: [H.L. Gokhale, Ag. CJ, P.V. Hardas, Naresh H. Patil, R.M. Borde & R.M. Savant, JJ] Jurisdiction of School Tribunal Constituted under Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application dismissed
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 491; Uttar Pradesh Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947 - Sections 3(1) and 3(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Purshottam Singh

Advocate S.N. Dwivedi, Adv.

Respondent

Superintendent, Central Prison

Advocate K.L. Misra, Deputy Government Advocate

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 491; Uttar Pradesh Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act, 1947 - Sections 3(1) and 3(2)
Reported In: AIR1950All4

Excerpt

.....schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as..........case has been, however, put up before this bench for decision under the orders of the chief justice, as the learned single judge has gone out of station during the vacation.2. mr. s.n. dwivedi has appeared on be-half of the applicant and from the facts given by him appears that the applicant has been in lawful custody at least from 15th december 1948. the applicant was arrested on 19th november 1948, for breach of an order passed under section 144, criminal p. c. he was granted bail but on 15th december 1948, he was re-arrested for breach of an order passed under section 8(l) (f), u. p. maintenance of public order (temporary) act (iv [4] of 1947). it appears that by an order passed in october, 1948, he was directed not to take part in certain activities and was required to execute a personal bond in a sum of rs. 1,000/- and two sureties for rs. 600/- each. the applicant failed to carry out this order and a case was thereafter started against him for breach of the said order and from 15th december, 1948, he was in custody as an under-trial prisoner. on 7th january 1949, the applicant was convicted under section 188, penal code for breach of the order under section 144, crinrnal p. c., and was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. so with effect from 7th january 1949, the applicant was undergoing the sentence of one month. this sentence expired on 7th february 1949, but he was detained in custody as an under-trial prisoner in the case under section 3, sub-section (7), u. p. maintenance of public order (temporary) act. he did not apply for bail and on 25th april 1949, he was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and is now undergoing that sentence. it would appear from the above narrative of facts that the applicant has been in custody as an under-trial prisoner and has been undergoing the sentence passed by a court in accordance with law from 16th december 1948. there can, therefore, be no question of any unlawful detention, nor can an.....

Full Judgment

Malik, C.J.

1. A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question for decision by a bench :

'Can an order under S. 8 (1) (a), U. P. Act IV [4] of 1947, be validly passed against a person, who is already in person (otherwise than under an order Under Section 3(2) of the Act) and who was not arrested with a view to ordering his detention under the Act ?' The whole case has been, however, put up before this Bench for decision under the orders of the Chief Justice, as the learned single Judge has gone out of station during the vacation.

2. Mr. S.N. Dwivedi has appeared on be-half of the applicant and from the facts given by him appears that the applicant has been in lawful custody at least from 15th December 1948. The applicant was arrested on 19th November 1948, for breach of an order passed Under Section 144, Criminal P. C. He was granted bail but on 15th December 1948, he was re-arrested for breach of an order passed Under Section 8(l) (f), U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act (IV [4] of 1947). It appears that by an order passed in October, 1948, he was directed not to take part in certain activities and was required to execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and two sureties for Rs. 600/- each. The applicant failed to carry out this order and a case was thereafter started against him for breach of the said order and from 15th December, 1948, he was in custody as an under-trial prisoner. On 7th January 1949, the applicant was convicted Under Section 188, Penal Code for breach of the order Under Section 144, Crinrnal P. C., and was sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment. So with effect from 7th January 1949, the applicant was undergoing the sentence of one month. This sentence expired on 7th February 1949, but he was detained in custody as an under-trial prisoner in the case Under Section 3, Sub-section (7), U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act. He did not apply for bail and on 25th April 1949, he was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and is now undergoing that sentence. It would appear from the above narrative of facts that the applicant has been in custody as an under-trial prisoner and has been undergoing the sentence passed by a Court in accordance with law from 16th December 1948. There can, therefore, be no question of any unlawful detention, nor can an application by the applicant for a writ of habeas corpus for his production on the ground that he has been illegally detained be entertained.

3. Learned counsel has informed us that on 7th March 1949, an order was passed by the Provincial Government Under Section 3 (l) (a), U. P. Maintenance of Public Order (Temporary) Act (IV [4] of 1947) directing his detention for a period of six months. It is the legality of that order that the applicant is questioning by his application Under Section 491, Criminal P. C. The mere fact that an illegal order, assuming that the order passed was illegal, had been passed against a prisoner, does not give him a right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus unless he had been taken in custody or his movements had been restricted by reason of that order. A writ of habeas corpus can only be asked for on the ground that a person has been kept under illegal detention. If there is no illegal detention there is no right Under Section 491, Criminal P. C., to move this Court for determination of the question whether a particular order is valid or invalid.

4. The application, to our minds, at this stage is misconceived and has, therefore, no force. We, therefore, dismiss it.

Same Parties Purshottam Singh vs Superintendent, Central Prison Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Malik, C.J. and ;Sapru, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 491; Utta...

Criminal