LexRANBIR SINGH SEHGAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(1) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 295 rules of professional . ethics, he has demonstra- ted the inadequacy of his training and education befitting a member of the profession of law. If he knew that it was highly improper to solicit a brief and even then wrote the post-ca.rd in question, he is a very unworthy mem her of the learned profes- sion. In any view of the matter, he does not appear to be possessed of a high moral calibre, which is essential for a member of the legal pro- fession. If anything, by adopting the attitude of denial which has been demonstrated to be falEe in the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, he has not deserved well of the Court even in the matter of amount of punishment to be meted to him for his proved misconduct. In our opinion, he fully deserves the punishment of suspension from practice for five years. This punishment will give him enough time and opportunity for deciding for himself, after deep deliberation and introspection, whether he is fit to continue to be a member of the legal profession. In our view he is not. Let him learn that a lawyer must never be a liar. RANBIR SINGH SEHGAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB (B. P. SINHA, C. J., K. SuBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Jail Adm~n~stration-Separation of prisoners-Oellular confi.nemen,,_V f!l•d_•ty o(-Rute permitting separate confinement by "¥ht-Oo?"titutwnality of-Prisons Act, 1894(9 of 1894), Pun;ab Jail Manual Paras, 571,575-0onstit,,1.:on of India, Art. 14. ln May, 1959, the appellant was sent to Arnbala Jail as an undcrtrial prisoner. 9n account of certain jail offences alleg7d to have bee~ committed by him the Superintendent of Jar! segregated hun from other prisoners and kept him in a separate cell. He was convicted in June, 1960. Thoogh he was 1961 In flie matter of Mr. 'A' An Advocate Sinha G. J, 1961 November 2. 1961 "aohir Singh Sthc.J v. ,,.,, •f Pwi}d 296 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (11162) SUPP. not alleged to be guilty of any jail offence or indiscipline af1er this date he was still confinea in a separate cdl wil.hout being allowed to communicate 'With other prisoners; he was only allowed to come out in the compound attachd to the cell for one hour in the morning and for one hour in the evening. In December, 1960, the Governor ordered that the appellant be treated .;.is a "li" class prisoner. Even after thi., he was still kept in a separate cell with this difference that he locked up only at night aud was allowed to move in the compound attached to the cell during the day. But he was still not allowed to communicate with others. The Prisons Act provided for the separation of prisoners and s.2!l thereof permitte<l convicted criminal prisoners to be confined in cells citl:cr in association or individually. Paragraph 57 l of the Punjah .Jail Manual provided that so far as possible all con- victs shall be kepi separate both hy day and by night. Para- graph 575 provided that a convict who could not be confined in a cdl by day by reason that he was required for some jail service shall be confined in a cell uy night. The appellant contended that his confiuc1nent \va.s under para 575, that para 575 offended Art. 14 of the Cons<itution and that the Superintendent of .Jail acted ma/a fide and discriminated against him by keeping hin1 in solitary confinement. llfld, tha1 para 575 of the Punjab .Jail Manual did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. This parab>"faph was a part of an integrated sche1nc for the maintenance of discipline of prisoners by providing for their separation. The classifica- tion was n11dc on the basis of sex and the nature of the pris- oners and depended on the availability of cells; it had a reasonable relation to the objcc< sought to be achieved. The power to separate was entrusted to the highest officer in the Jail \vho " .. <ls ordinarily expected ro act reasonably, objec- tively and without bias. Hr.Id, further (p<r Sinha, C . .J ., SuLba Rao, Shah and Mudholkar, JJ.) that the confinement of the appellant in a separate cell in the manner it was being done was illegal. The separation of the appellant so as to seclude him from com1nunicating \\'ith or from the sight of other prisoners certainly a1nountcd to cellular confinement if not to solitary confinement. This could only be done as a measure of punishment, and even then the prjsuncr was entitled to have one hour's exercise every da
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.