Chattar Singh vs State of Haryana and ors.

Ujagar Singh, J.

This petition has been filed for quashing two jail punishments dated 17.1.1983 and 26.6.1984 respectively. In reply to the petition, written statement has been filed by Sh. S.B. Kush, Superintendent, District Jail, Karnal. It is mentioned therein that before producing the petitioner before the Superintendent Jail by the Deputy Superintendent Jail, the Superintendent recorded the statement of the convictofficial of the outside gang and the head warder chakar and also heard the petitioner. The punishment awarded was got judicially appraised on 19.9.1983 by the District and Sessions Judge, vide his endorsement No. 1580 dated 22.8.1983. It is further mentioned in paragraph 6 that with regard to the offence committed by the petitioner on 21.6.1986, the petitioner was heard in person by the Superintendent and was given every opportunity to prove himself innocent. This punishment has also been got judicially appraised by the Sessions Judge and was confirmed by the Director General of Prisons, Haryana. The petition is also opposed on the ground that the petitioner has enjoyed temporary release on parole and also furlough for about 9 times and had enough opportunity to file such a petition, challenging the jail punishment. It is admitted that the petitioner has earned about 10 remissions during the period, beginning from 1983 till 1987. This shows that the petitioner has been throughout of good conduct during this period and he has completed about 13 years, 3 months and 15 days, including the remissions.

I have gone through Annexure RI with regard to the offence committed on 17.8.1983. Charge was levelled against the petitioner by Warden Ram Singh, incharge Guard. Annexure RI shows that no evidence was recorded by the Superintendent Jail and there was, therefore, no question of allowing opportunity to the convict to crossexamination any witness. This case was sent for judicial appraisal and the only order written by the District and Sessions Judge is as under :

"Perused Judicial appraisal recorded and approved as proposed. Returned to Jail Authorities."

The above endorsement is dated 19.8.1983. This endorsement does not show whether the facts of this case have been gone into with a view to find out whether the procedure for awarding jail punishment was followed or not. The Deputy Superintendent Jail has not referred to the provisions of section 46 of the Prisons act, requiring judicial determination by the authority awarding jail punishment. The word "determine" in section 46 of the above Act has been repeatedly held to indicate that the punishing authority, being a quasijudicial authority has to determine in a quasijudicial manner which means that witnesses against the convict have to be examined in his presence and he had to be allowed an opportunity to crossexamination them. Thereafter the convict has a right to lead evidence in defence and then after hearing arguments, the case has to be decided. Similarly, judicial appraisal does not only mean that appraisal is to be approved in cursory manner. The very term `judicial appraisal'' means that the facts have to be gone into with a view to administering justice and, if necessary, the convict is to be summoned for hearing.

In the second jail punishment, Annexure R3 was a letter sent by the Superintendent, District Jail, Ambala to the District and Sessions Judge for judicial appraisal by the Sessions Judge, Ambala and endorsement on this R3 shows that the only words written by the Sessions Judge are :

"Seen Returned"

As already observed, these words do not fulfil the requirements of a judicial appraisal. In this offence also the mandatory procedure was not followed, as indicated above.

With these observations, this petition is accepted and jail punishments recorded against the petitioner are set aside.