Leelu Ram vs State of Haryana and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J.

Leelu Ram petitioner has been undergoing life imprisonment on being convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Hissar, vide his order dated 16.1.81. While he was lodged in District Jail, Bhiwani, proceedings were started against him for jail offence, for keeping in his possession various articles. The Superintendent, acting on his confessional statement, imposed a cut of 7 days in the earned remission. The paper were sent for judicial appraisal to the District and Sessions Judge. He has now come to this Court for getting his jail punishment quashed. He also seeks a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondentauthorities to release him.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined her case to the legality of the order imposing jail punishment.

It is not disputed at the bar that judicial appraisal is to be carried out with respect to jail matters in view of the observations of their Lordships in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675. The respondentauthorities have filed a photostat copy of the proceedings, regarding jail punishment, referred to the District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani who passed the following order on 23.7.87 :

"Judicially appraised and approved."

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that it was not a judicial appraisal of the jail punishment. The proceedings before the District and Sessions Judge are quasi judicial in nature and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to appear and bring his case to the notice of the learned District and Sessions Judge.

In paragraph 7 of the petition, it had been specifically pleaded by the petitioner that no notice was received by him from the District and Sessions Judge when the judicial appraisal was carried out. This fact has not been specifically denied in the return filed by the respondent authorities. 1 presume the same to be correctly stated. In Nirbhai Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Report 356, Ujagar Singh, J. has made the following observations :

"So far as the appraisal by the learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 2631987, is concerned, the order passed on that date does not show that the petitioners were given any opportunity to bring to the notice of the Sessions Judge the facts leading to the jail punishment and that they had no opportunity to point out the illegalities committed during the enquiry by the jail authorities. This order of judicial appraisal is a quasi judicial order and that, too, passed by a Senior Judicial officer of the Superior Judiciary of this High Court and it is always expected that while judicially appraising the jail punishment a notice is required to be issued to the convicts to whom jail punishment is awarded for ends of justice. If such opportunity is given, these matters can be decided satisfactorily at that level just by cursorily going through the punishment record".

I endorse these observations of the learned Judge. It was the duty of the learned District and Sessions Judge to have called the convict so as to give him an opportunity of pointing out the facts favourable to him and the illegality, if any, committed during the enquiry by the jail authorities. 1 hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned jail punishment.

The matter of premature release of the petitioner shall be considered by the State authorities after the necessary proceedings are moved by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT accordingly.