PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the annual inspection of District Jail, Rupnagar, convict Pardeep Kumar son of Bahadur Singh resident of Village Kasol, undergoing sentence for an offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, submitted a representation before the Administrative Judge complaining against the denial of parole to him. Such representation was ordered to be treated as a Criminal Writ Petition. Initially, this Court issued notice to the Union Territory, Chandigarh as well as the Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh. However, later notice was ordered to be issued to the State of Punjab. On 04.07.2014, it was found that a humble beeri is the reason for denial of parole to convict Pardeep Kumar, but the Bench is unable to discern any provision in the Punjab jail Manual that a beeri is a prohibited article.

(2.) Thereafter, on 11.07.2014, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent, District Jail, Rupnagar, wherein it has been pointed out that as per para No. 540(2) of the Punjab Jail Manual, tobacco and all other substances except cigarettes and biddies are prohibited articles. It has been also pointed out that during visit of the District & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar on 27.07.2009, it was found that biddies and cigarettes were being sold in jail canteen prior to 13.07.2009. Such fact was also counter checked from the stock register maintained in the canteen. It was found that despite the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the biddies and cigarettes were being sold in the jail premises, therefore, the Jail Superintendent stopped the sale of biddies and cigarettes in jail canteen. However, the petitioner was caught possessing bundles of biddies & tobacco during a search inside jail premises on 08.10.2013. Thus, the Superintendent, Jail, ordered the punishment of 30 days separate confinement to the petitioner, as tobacco i.e. bundles of biddies is prohibited article in jail premises. Such order was placed for appraisal before the District & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar on 26.10.2013. It has been also pointed out that as per Punjab Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1962, a convict can only be granted parole leave if he/she maintains good conduct inside the jail on continuous basis. Since the petitioner has broken the code of good conduct by keeping the prohibited articles i.e. bundles of beeris and tobacco in his possession, he would be eligible for release on parole after the expiry of one year from the date of commission of offence, as no parole/furlough leave could be granted to any such prisoner within this period.

(3.) However, after considering such affidavit, this Court found that in the absence of any prohibition regarding possession or consumption of cigarettes and biddies, as discernible from Clause 540 of Chapter XVII of the Punjab Jail Manual, punishment imposed upon the applicant, may be a nullity. The State of Punjab was called upon to consider; whether Clause 540 of Chapter XVII requires amendment to prohibit consumption of cigarettes and biddies etc. in jail. On 11.08.2014, it was found that Para 547 of Chapter XVIII of the Jail Manual provides that a prisoner, who has committed any of the offences enumerated in the preceding paragraph, shall be put up before the Deputy Superintendent by the Executive Officer In-Charge of the prisoner alongwith his history ticket in which the offence committed is recorded. The Deputy Superintendent shall hold a preliminary enquiry, record his own observations and present the prisoner alongwith his history ticket, witnesses and other relevant record before the Superintendent, who shall hold an enquiry and punish for such offences. The Court noticed the judgment of learned Single Bench of this Court in Shishpal Singh v. Superintendent District Jail, 1994 3 RCR(Cri) 516, wherein it has been held that punishment can be awarded only after examining the witnesses and giving an opportunity to the delinquent prisoner to cross-examine the witnesses alongwith an opportunity to lead evidence in defence. It has also been held that judicial appraisal of punishment cannot cure inherent defect of failure to grant requisite opportunity to the delinquent prisoner.