Crl. Rev. No.312 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.312 of 2011 Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a revision against the order dated 28/29.04.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad , vide which, the petitioner was convicted, as well as, the order and judgment dated 05.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Fatehabad, vide which, the appeal has been dismissed. The allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he was in the lawful custody of Prem Swaroop, who was discharging the duties of a public servant as constable and while he was discharging his duty and the petitioner was being taken to Central Jail, Hisar, he escaped from the lawful custody of constable and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 224 IPC. Prem Swaroop, who was the constable was held negligent in discharge of duties as public servant and was punished for an offence under Section 223 IPC. Crl. Rev. No.312 of 2011 2 The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that PW1 stated that on 10.10.2002, he was posted at M.H.C and in FIR No.482 dated 10.10.2002 under Section 13 of the Gambling Act, Ashok Kumar was arrested by Head Constable Randhir Singh. He had entrusted Ashok Kumar to constable Prem Swaroop and Constable Jagdish 667 and Constable Jagdish 925 and accordingly DDR No.11 at 10.30 a.m dated 10.10.2002 was recorded, wherein, in cross-examination, it has come that no copy of DDR is on the judicial file and in the absence of DDR No.11 on the judicial file, the testimony of PW1 is only oral. Heard. The present is a revision petition. The jurisdiction of revisional court is limited. Even on merits, the argument that the DDR is not on record has no bearing on the conviction of the petitioner in facts of the case. It is not disputed that the petitioner was arrested. The fact that the petitioner was produced in case FIR No.482 dated 10.10.2002 under Section 13-A of the Gambling Act has been substantiated. Ashok Kumar- accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/D1. PW4 Jagdish Chand Constable supported the case of the prosecution and stated that accused Ashok Kumar escaped from the judicial custody while Prem Sawroop- Constable was taking him to Central Jail, Hisar. Prem Sawroop, too, has been convicted under Section 223 IPC for being negligent in duty and allowing the petitioner to escape. Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the petitioner escaped from the custody of Prem Sawroop. No other ground was raised. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 07.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet