Criminal Revision No.1364 of 2005 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 30, 2009 Union Territory, Chandigarh .....Petitioner VERSUS Dalbir Singh Rana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Disha Jaswal, Advocate, for Mr.Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Manjit Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos.8 & 9. Mr.R.S.Bains, Advocate, for respondent No.14. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Criminal Revision Nos.1364 of 2005 (Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs. Dalbir Singh Rana & others) Criminal Revision No.1364 of 2005 (O&M) : 2 : and 174 of 2006 (D.S.Rana Vs. State of U.T.Chandigarh). Both the revision petitions are directed against the order dated 11.4.2005 impugning the judgment of Addl.Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. Union Territory, Chandigarh is aggrieved by the fact that the court has discharged all the accused under Sections 121, 121-A, 123, 221 and 223 of the IPC, whereas D.S.Rana accused is the petitioner in the second revision and has impugned the order to an extent that he has been charge sheeted for offences under Sections 224, 217and 222 read with Section 120-B IPC. Jagtar Singh Hawara and Paramjit Singh Bheora had escaped from Burail Jail, where they were detained in connection with the trial of Beant Singh's murder case. As can be seen from the record, the movements of the accused facing trial in Beant Singh's murder were restricted within the premises of Model Jail, Burail and a notification was issued by the Chandigarh Administration to convert this jail into a high security jail. Local Police as well as Paramilitary forces were detailed to look after the security of the Model Jail. Accused Jagar Singh Hawara etc. escaped from the jail premises by digging a 94 feet long tunnel and accordingly the case under Sections 223, 224, 452, 457 IPC was registered at Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh. D.S.Rana petitioner in Criminal Revision No.174 of 2006 was then posted as Superintendent Model Jail, Burail and this FIR was on the basis of a report given by said Mr.Rana. During investigation, the Superintendent and other employees of the jail were also arrested. Number of other persons were also arrested in connection with the same case. The allegation is that accused were able to escape from the jail with the help of the jail staff and this Criminal Revision No.1364 of 2005 (O&M) : 3 : escape became possible due to unnecessary facilities provided to the accused persons in violation of the provisions of the Jail Manual. On the basis of evidence and material collected, challan was presented against 17 accused persons under Sections 121, 121- A, 123, 217, 221, 223, 224, 452 and 457 read with Section 120-B IPC. The trial court after sifting the evidence and the material placed in the challan, discharged two CRPF Constables, namely, Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh. The court also discharged the remaining accused from the allegations of offences under Sections 121, 121-A, 123, 221 and 223 IPC. It was, however, viewed that prima facie case was made out to the effect that the escapee accused committed an offence under Section 224 IPC in criminal conspiracy with all other accused except CRPF Constables Kashmir Singh and Jagir Singh. Jail officials D.S.Rana, Dalbir Singh Sandhu, V.M.Gill, Paramjit Singh Rana, Inder Singh and Nishan Singh, were accused of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 217 and 222 (3rd part) read with Section 120-B IPC. The Union Territory, Chandigarh accordingly has filed this petition and has prayed that the charges under Sections 121, 121-A and 123 IPC are also required to be framed. In short, they have impugned the discharge of the accused persons of the offences as noticed above. As can be noticed from the record, the case of prosecution in connection with the allegation of waging war is based on the statements of two witnesses, i.e., Abini Kumar and Mangtu Ram. Reference is made to a meeting which took place between Abid Mehmood and Jagtar Singh Hawara in the room of a doctor where they allegedly discussed terrorism. Mangtu Ram stated that Criminal Revision No.1364 of 2005 (O&M) : 4 : they used to raise slogans of KHALISTAN ZINDABAD. Mangtu Ram has also stated something about the preparations made which were to be carried out after escape from the jail. A reliance is also placed on a letter written by Jagar Singh Hawara in Punjabi to Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, Jathedar of Akal Takhat. In this letter, he has made a mention to fight till his last for liberation of Khalistan. On the basis of this statement, a plea was made that prima facie evidence was there to frame a charge against Jagtar Singh Hawara for waging war. As per well merited reasoning and analysis of the provisions of the offence, the trial court has held that no prima facie case is made out for framing a charge against the accused persons for waging war under Section 121 IPC. It is aptly observed by the court that after his escape from jail, accused Jagtar Singh Hawara made no attempt which would reveal an offence of waging war or attempt to wage war or that he had abetted in waging war. In the letters, which were relied upon by the prosecution, no mention is made to any specific steps which he had taken or which he wanted to take in connection with liberation of Khalistan. The meeting between Jagtar Singh Hawara and Abid Mehmood and the utterance made by him, as referred to, were rightly held to be not sufficient to prima facie show that any act was done, which would prima facie show the allegations of waging war or attempt to wage war or any abatement in that connection. Mere raising of slogans, cannot be considered enough to prima facie or otherwise show the allegations of waging war. The statement of Mangtu Ram was also rightly Criminal Revision No.1364 of 2005 (O&M) : 5 : considered by the court not sufficient enough to lead to an allegation of waging war or an attempt of waging war etc. As per this witness, Jagtar Singh Hawara allegedly had stated that the preparation has been made for escape from jail and that after escape Ministers and big Politicians will be killed and the terrorism would be spread in the country through bomb blasts. No such act was ever done by him after escape from the jail. A number of judgments were placed before the trial court. It is first urged that the allegations of waging war cannot be made out from mere raising of slogans etc. In Balwant Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1785, it is observed that mere casual raising of some slogans, a couple of times by accused persons without intention to incite people to create disorder would neither constitute any threat to the Government nor it give rise to feelings of enmity of hatred among different communities or religious or other groups. This Court in Jagdev Singh Talwandi Vs. State of Punjab, 1984(2) RCR 16, observed that the accused persons suggesting that the Akali Dal should establish a Government parallel to Central Government would not amount to questioning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and the FIR under Section 124A IPC was quashed in this case. Aravindan and others Vs. State of Kerala 1983 Cri.L.J. 1259 is a case where again it is held that mere slogan shouting that the Government can be changed by an armed revolution would not mean that there is a conspiracy to change the Government by criminal force. In Mir Hasan Khan and others Vs. The State, AIR (38) 1991 Patna 60, the expression Criminal Revision No.1364 of 2005 (O&M) : 6 : `waging war' as used in Section 121 was held to mean “waging war' in the manner usual in war.” It was further held that it is not enough to show that the persons charged have contrived to obtain possession of an armory and have, when called upon to surrender, used the rifle and ammunition. It must also be shown that the seizure of the armory was part and parcel of a planned operation and that their intention in resisting the troops was to overwhelm and defeat those troops. The observations made in N.Natarajan Vs. B.K.Subba Rao, AIR 2003 S.C. 541 would show that the charge under Section 121 and 121A Indian Penal Code was even not pressed in the Bombay Bomb blast cases, though initially it was proposed to charge the accused persons under these Sections. Reference has also been made to the murder case of Smt.Indira Gandi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi where charge of waging war was not pressed. The view taken by the trial court is well considered and does not suffer from any infirmity to call for any interference. The court has rightly framed the charges under various sections for which there is material available, which would prima facie be sufficient to order framing of charge under said sections. Accordingly, the contention raised in Criminal Revision No. 174 of 2006 on behalf of Mr.Rana that they ought to be discharged under these offences can also not be accepted. No cause is made out to interfere in the impugned order and both the revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed. November 30, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE