NARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AAG for the State of Haryana appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This is a petition filed under section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the jail punishment dated 29-31995 (copy Annexure P1) as illegal, arbitrary and against the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC in the Court of Sessions Judge. Sonepat and was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment vide judgment dated 29-10-1993. Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Superintendent of Jail. District Jail. Sonepat heard the accusation brought against the petitioner regarding some incident which took place in the jail premises on 29-3-1995 involving the petitioner-convict in some incident of beating to a co-prisoner Kashmir Singh without any valid reason. Respondent No. 2 while awarding jail punishment took into consideration the previous jail punishments awarded to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 held that the petitioner was of habitual nature to commit offences and he used insulting and threatening language against the aforesaid prisoner Kashmir Singh. The incident is said to have taken place in the presence of one Mr. J.S. Chillar. a Pharmacist working in the dispensary inside the Jail. It has been alleged that no enquiry into the allegation made against the petitioner was conducted for determining his guilt as required under section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894 read with paragraph 83 of the Punjab Jail Manual. It has been alleged that these provisions are mandatory. The Punishing Authority did not conduct any enquiry himself and did not record the statement of any witness including Mr. J.S. Chillar. It was submitted that it is well settled law that the proceedings under section 46 of the Prisons Act, 1894 are quasi judicial in nature and should be conducted with meticulous compliance with principles of natural justice. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and his right to defend himself was denied to him. By the impugned order his remission of four days which he earned was forfeited. Even the Sessions Judge while considering the case in judicial appraisal did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and he was not summoned by him and was not heard before the judicial appraisal was done. Reliance was placed on the judgment reported in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, wherein it has been held that jail punishment without proper judicial appraisal is nullity.

(3.) Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. The respondents put in appearance and filed written statement of the Superintendent of the District Jail, Sonepat for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the written statement, it has been categorically mentioned that the jail punishment was awarded to the petitioner-convict after following the due and proper procedure as laid down under the relevant rules. The jail punishment was judicially appraised by the Sessions Judge. It was emphasised that the petitioner-convict had committed eight jail offences during his stay in jail in a short period of three years. The petitioner was accused of concealing these facts in the petition. The petitioner was said to be a man of quarrelsome nature and a habitual offender. The petitioner, it was further mentioned did not improve his behaviour even after his conviction. On facts, it was denied that no evidence was recorded and it was alleged that statement of Mr. J.S. Chillar was recorded during the enquiry and the petitioner was given full chance to defend himself by respondent No. 2 as well as by the District & Sessions Judge, Sonepat while doing judicial appraisal.