LexVARINDER SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2014] 1 S.C.R. 496 VARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2014) JANUARY 16, 2014. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Petition seeking to quash FIR and criminal proceedings - Petitioner, a visitor to prison - On search, mobile phone and charger recovered from him - FIR for offences punishable ulss 42 and 45 of the Prisons Act - High 0 Court rejecting the petition - Held: Case of appellant clearly falls under category (1) of the grounds of quashing of FIR mentioned in the case of Bhajan Lal - On the date of alleged offence, mobile phone or charger was not listed as one of the prohibited articles under Punjab Prison Manual - Thus, no E offence is made out u/s 42 of the Act, as there was no communication which was done or was attempted to being done contrary to the rules - Further, the appellant was not a prisoner on the date of the offence - Therefore, he could not have committed a prison offence as defined u/s 45 of the Act - The judgment of High Court is set aside - FIR and the F proceedings against appellant are quashed -Prisoners Act, 1894 - ss.42,45 and 52-A. Prisons Act, 1894: G s. 52-A - Visitor to prison - On search found in possession of a mobile phone and its charger - FIR dated 24.9.2009 - Section enforced by Notification dated 8.3.2011 - Held: Notification will not apply to the case in hand, as the alleged offence was committed in 2009, and retrospective H 496 - VARINDER SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 497 effect will not apply in the case of criminal laws - Therefore, A there is no offence made out against appellant - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482. ss. 42 and 45 - Offences under the two provisions - Explained. B A mobile phone and its charger were recovered, on search, from the appellant, who was a visitor to a Central Prison in Punjab. An FIR for offences u/ss 42 and 45 was registered against him on 24.9.2009. His petition u/s 482 CrPC seeking to quash the FIR and the criminal C proceedings was dismissed by the High Court. In the instant appeal, the questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) Whether an offence was made· out u/ss 42 and 45 (12) of the Prisons Act? and (ii) Whether o the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition to quash the FIR? Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 45 of the Prisons Act, 1894 E provides for acts which are declared to be prison offences when committed by a prisoner. Clause (12) makes receiving, possessing or transferring any prohibited article a prison offence. The appellant was not a prisoner on the date of the commission of the offence. F He could thus, not have committed a 'prison offence' as defined u/ss 45 of the Act. Therefore,- no offence is made out u/s 45 of the Act. [para 8-9] [501-D-F] 1.2. Insofar as s.42 of the Act is concerned, it provides that only that communication, which is contrary to the G rules made u/s 59 of the Act is prohibited. The Punjab Jail Manual lists the prohibited articles in Punjab prisons. This list does not mention Mobile phone or charger as one of the prohibited articles. Thus, the communication, even if it was attempted to being done, was not contrary H 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20141 1 S.C.R. A to the prison rules and, thus, is not an offence u/s 42 of the Act. [para 9-1 OJ [501-F; 502-D; 503-C-D] 1.3. Section 52-A makes possession of mobile phone by the prisoner and its supply to him by any person an 8 offence. The notification by the .funjab Government to bring the Section in force is da~S.03.2011. The FIR for the offence was dated 24.09.2009. This notification will obviously not apply to the case in hand as the alleged offence was committed in 2009, and retrospective effect C will not apply in the case of criminal laws. Therefore, there is no offence made out against the appellant. [para 11] (503-F-H] 2.1. In light of the settled legal principles, the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition to quash the D FIR.Under s.482 CrPC, the High Court has the power to quash an FIR. This court in the case of Bhajan Lal has laid down the categories of cases in which the High Court can exercise its power uls 482 and quash the FIR. [para E F 12-13] [504-8, D-E] State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 =1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - relied on Sunder Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 14
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.