CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Devinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 10 September 1990 · Citation: (1990) 2 AICLR 627 : (1991) 1 RCR(Criminal) 179

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jai Singh Sekhon, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 315 of 1990
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 374 words

J. S. Sekhon, J.

1.

Return on behalf of Respondents I and 2 has been filed by Superintendent Central Jail, Patiala.

2.

Through this writ petition, Devinder PW Singh prisoner seeks the quashment of the order dated 9.9.1989 awarding some jail punishment for overstaying by two days of the parole period inter alia, on the ground that proper appraisal of the concerned Sessions Judge was not obtained to the punishment.

3.

In the return filed by Shri Rajinder Singh, Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala it is maintained that the abovereferred punishment was awarded after due enquiry and judicial appraisal was obtained from the Sessions Judge.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record produced by Shri Hardeep Singh, Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala. The learned Sessions Judge has passed the following order dated 3.11.1989 :

"Punishment imposed by you on Devinder Pal Singh convict has been approved by the undersigned. The documents sent by you vide your letter under reference are returned herewith as the same are no longer required in this office."

A bare glance through the abovereferred order leaves no doubt that the learned Sessions Judge has not pissed a speaking order. There is not even an oblique indication from this order that the learned Sessions Judge has gone through the documents submitted by the Superintendent jail along with his letter dated 4.10.1989. This Court in Surat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 679 had held that the Sessions Judge should pass a speaking order after full application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, in the present case also, the learned Sessions Judge has not passed a speaking order after full application of mind which dots not fulfil the requirements of the mandate of the Supreme Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1579.

5.

The very purpose of giving the abovereferred direction by the Apex Court is lost if the judicial appraisal is given in a mechanical manner without application of mind.

6.

Consequently, on this ground alone the abovereferred order is quashed by accepting this writ petition.

7.

The original file has been returned to Shri Hardeep Singh, Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala.