Jagir Singh vs State of Punjab and ors.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Jagir Singh has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of jail punishments awarded to him on different occasions.

As per averments made in the petition, the petitioner was awarded imprisonment for life for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, on April 26, 1983. He was detained in Central Jail, Gurdaspur. During his detention in the jail he was punished for various jail offences. In the petition he enumerated nine jail offences alleged to have been committed by him, for which either cut was made in his earned remission or he was confined in solitary cell block. According to him, the jail punishments were awarded in contravention of the statutory provisions of Punjab Jail Manual and the Prisons Act. No proper enquiry was made by the jail authorities before awarding him the punishments. He was not allowed to crossexamine the witnesses or to lead evidence in defence. Proper procedure established by law was not folded in any case not there had been any judicial appraisal of the punishments by the Sessions Judge. It was only in one case when judicial appraisal of the punishment was done by the Sessions Judge, but that too was not proper. The petitioner was not issued any notice nor he was given any opportunity to defend his case. It was further alleged that the jail offences, which were three years old, did not cause any hindrance in the consideration of the case of the petitioner for premature release or temporary release.

In the return filed by the respondents, it was contended that on 28.8.1983, the petitioner was found under the influence of intoxicant and he was produced before the Superintendent. He confessed his guilt and admitted that four intoxicant tablets were received by him on 26.8.1983, when he held an interview. In view of his confession, a punishment of 12 days cut in the earned remission was imposed and he was sent to a separate ward as a reformatory measure. Regarding the offence committed on 18.5.1986, it was alleged that the petitioner gave a blow on the head of Ajit Singh convict and Ajit Singh suffered an injury. He was ordered to be kept in solitary confinement for one month but on appraisal, the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, reduced the period of confinement in cell to 15 days. For the various other offences, mentioned in the petition, it was pleaded that no punishment was awarded to the petitioner and he was ordered to be kept in a separate ward only in the interest of jail administration and as a reformatory measure.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that in most of the offences committed in jail by the petitioner, the only punishment awarded to him was his detention in a separate cell block for some time and that detention did not constitute a jail punishment. The petitioner was ordered to be kept separate by way of a reformative measure and in order to maintain discipline in the jail. This separation of the petitioner was distinct from separate confinement ordered under section 46 of the Prisons Act and it had no irksome conditions attached to it. The learned counsel for the respondents conceded this fact and submitted that the petitioner was awarded punishment, for jail offences only twice.

On 28.8.1988, the petitioner was found under the influence of intoxicants and he confessed his guilt before the Superintendent. He was awarded punishment for this offence by way of 12 days cut in his earned remission. Admittedly, this punishment was not appraised from the Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur. On 18.5.1986, the petitioner gave a blow on the head of Ajit Singh convict and caused him an injury. The Superintendent Jail ordered that the petitioner be kept in a separate ward for one month. On Judicial appraisal of the punishment, the learned Sessions Judge reduced the period of separation to 15 days. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these two punishments also did not affect the case of the petitioner for his premature release or temporary release, as the offences were committed long back. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The questions whether the punishment of 12 days cut in the earned remission was validly awarded and whether there had been proper judicial appraisal of the punishment awarded for the offence committed on 18.5.1986, do not remain of much significance in view of the fact that these offences were committed long back, i.e. more than five years ago. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1922 of 1987, decided on August 18, 1988 by K.S. Bhalla, J, it was observed that the jail offences committed four years before do not furnish a good ground for not releasing the accused prematurely. The decision in this writ petition was relied in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1989(1) Recent CR. 118. Thus, the jail punishments awarded to the petitioner referred to above will not cause any hindrance or impediment in considering the case of the petitioner for his premature release or temporary release. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations.