Man Before MP High Court Seeking ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Excessive Imprisonment Sent Back To Prison Citing Erroneous Release

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed the petition of a person seeking compensation for being imprisoned beyond his sentence on the ground that he was erroneously released early. On discovering the same, the Court directed him to surrender before the jail authorities to serve the remaining part of his sentence. The division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra was essentially dealing with a writ petition filed by a person seeking compensation from the State worth Rs.10 Lakhs for excessive imprisonment. Facts of the case were that the Petitioner was convicted in three different cases- first, under Section 21(c), 18(c) NDPS Act, then under Section 307 IPC and later under Section 8, 21 NDPS Act. While hearing the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against his conviction, the Court had concluded that his sentences were to run concurrently and by that point of time, he had already completed his time in jail. Therefore, the Court had ordered for his immediate release. The Petitioner had placed the order of the Court before the jail authority and later before the lower court, praying that he be released. However, he was not released on the ground that he had not paid the fine amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs, in lieu of which he had to spend 4 additional years in jail. Aggrieved, he moved an application under Section 482 CrPC before the Court, praying for his release. His application was disposed of with the direction that if he were to pay the fine amount, he be released immediately by the authorities. The Petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Court in the nature of Habeas Corpus, wherein he pointed out that he has already completed the jail sentence. Therefore, he submitted that he could not be kept in jail anymore and that the actions of the authorities was violative of his fundamental right under Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the Petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the Petitioner again moved an application under Section 482 CrPC before the Court, praying for his release. This time, his prayer was allowed and accordingly, the Petitioner was released. Feeling that he deserved compensation for his trouble, the Petitioner filed another petition before the Court. The Petitioner submitted before the Court that he had suffered imprisonment for eight months more than his actual sentence, which was in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Bhola Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Petitioner argued that he was entitled for compensation. Per contra, the State argued that the second application moved by the Petitioner under Section 482 CrPC was not maintainable since the matter was already decided in the first application. It was pointed out that the Court, while dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner subsequent to the dismissal of the first application, had not granted him liberty to file another application under Section 482 CrPC with the same prayer. The State further reiterated that the Petitioner was liable to serve 4 more years of imprisonment as he had failed to pay the fine amount. Therefore, it was contended that the petition was liable to be dismissed. Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court questioned the maintainability of the second application under Section 482 CrPC moved by the Petitioner. The Court observed that the liberty granted to the Petitioner to approach appropriate forum did not imply that he could move an application praying for the same relief that was earlier denied- Granting liberty to approach appropriate forum does not mean that the petitioner can again file a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying for same relief, which was rejected by this Court in earlier round of litigation. It is seen from the record that the learned Single Judge has considered the aspect that while exercising the inherent powers the orders can be passed. Thus, the Court held that the proceedings with respect to the second application moved by the Petitioner that led to his release was void ab initio- The learned Single Judge was having no jurisdiction to entertain second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the same cause of action and for the same relief, which was already rejected vide order dated 10.03.2022 based upon the report submitted by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Narsinghpur. If the Court is not having any jurisdiction to entertain second petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the order itself is void ab initio and on the basis of such orders the petitioner could not have been released. The Court further opined that the Petitioner was required to challenge (which he didn't)- findings of the Court while dismissing his first application under Section...

Man Before MP High Court Seeking ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Excessive Imprisonment Sent Back To Prison Citing Erroneous Release

Zeeshan Thomas

Tags