IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1661 of 2008 Date of decision : November 11, 2009 Dalbir Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Munishwar Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Dalbir Singh has filed this revision petition. The petitioner who was constable at the relevant time was tried along with Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha and Night MHC Harsukhpal Singh for offences under sections 223 and 224 IPC on the averments that Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha was arrested with 10 grams of smack and FIR No. 108 dated 30.7.2001 was registered against him in Police Station Kotwali, Amritsar and he was put up in lock up of the said Police Station. The petitioner was on duty of the said lock up whereas HC Harsukhpal Singh was Night Moharrar Head Constable on duty in the Police Station. Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha escaped from the lock up after breaking grill of the window in connivance with Dalbir Singh petitioner and MHC Harsukhpal Singh. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar vide judgment dated 8.3.2007 acquitted Harsukhpal Singh but convicted Lakhwinder Singh Criminal Revision No. 1661 of 2008 -2- under section 224 IPC and convicted petitioner Dalbir Singh under section 223 IPC and vide order of same date, sentenced Lakhwinder Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and to pay fine of Rs 1000/- and ordered release of Dalbir Singh petitioner on probation of good conduct. Appeal preferred by Dalbir Singh petitioner has been dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated 1.5.2008. Feeling still aggrieved, Dalbir Singh has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Harsukhpal Singh has since been acquitted although key of the lock up was with Harsukhpal Singh. The argument, although apparently attractive, is in fact devoid of any merit because key of the lock up was not used for escape by Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha. On the other hand, he escaped by breaking the grill of the lock up. The petitioner was on duty of lock up and therefore, without his connivance or knowledge, Lakhwinder Singh could not have escaped from the lock up by breaking grill thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to statement of SI Shiv Singh. However, the said statement does not show that the petitioner was not on duty of the lock up nor does it show that Lakhwinder Singh had not escaped from the lock up. It rather shows that the petitioner was on duty of the lock up and Lakhwinder Singh escaped from the lock up. Evidence has been appreciated by both the courts below. They have arrived at concurrent finding of guilt of the petitioner. The Criminal Revision No. 1661 of 2008 -3- said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Reference may be made to observations made by the appellate court in paragraph 9 of the judgment:- “The undisputed facts are that Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha was arrested in FIR No.108 dated 30.7.2001 under section 22- 61-85 of NDPS Act from whose custody 10 grams of smack was recovered. After effecting the recovery, he was put to lock up and was to be produced in the court on 31.7.2001 It is also undisputed that SI Shiv Kumar was in charge of the police station and C. Natha Singh, C. Kulwinder Singh, C. Nirmal Singh and Dalbir Singh were on santary duty. At the relevant time from 9.00 pm to 12.00 night C. Dalbir Singh was on santary duty while Lahwinder Singh was confined in the lock up”. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the courts below holding the petitioner guilty under section 223 IPC. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine being bereft of any merit. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 11, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'