CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Joginder Singh vs Inspector General, Prisons Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 January 1992 · Citation: (1992) 2 AICLR 319 : (1992) 2 RCR(Criminal) 36

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.S.Chahal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8261-M 1991
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

8 paragraphs · 361 words

G.S. Chalal, J. (Oral)

1.

Joginder Singh, life convictpetitioner has moved this criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the three `jail punishments'' dated 4/5/6.5.1991 respectively, and also for the grant of agricultural parole.

2.

The petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment under the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal since 29.11.1985. He applied for parole, but the same was not allowed on the basis that he had been awarded the three aforementioned `jail punishments''. No `judicial appraisal'' thereof has been carried out by the learned Sessions Judge, as required by law.

3.

In the return filed, the respondent authorities have taken up the plea that jail punishments were duly got judicially appraised from the learned Sessions Judge who had sent his communication dated 8.5.1991. The respondents have placed on record a communication from the Superintendent, District and Sessions Judge, addressed to the Superintendent Jail, Sonepat to the effect that the jail punishments were judicially appraised. This letter was in reply to the communication dated 7.5.1991.

4.

Surat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1990(1) Recent CR 679 it was held that the Session Judge is required to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and pass a speaking order regarding the proposed punishment or the punishment awarded to a prisoner. This view was followed by J.S. Sekhon, J. in

Raunak Ram v. State of Haryana and another, 1991(1) Recent CR 466. 5. A reference to Annexure P6, placed on record, with the written reply, shows that the learned Sessions Judge passed some order immediately when the communication was received. The document does not show that judicial mind was applied or that the convictpetitioner was given an opportunity to show any infirmity in the procedure followed by the Jail Authorities while awarding the jail punishments in question. In this situation, the jail punishments cannot be described to have judicially appraised and are hereby quashed.

6.

The petitioner shall move the Jail Authorities for the grant of agricultural parole which matter shall be decided within six weeks from the date of filing of such an application. With these directions, the Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of.

JUDGMENT accordingly