Sahib Singh vs State of Haryana, through I.G.(Prisons) and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J.

Sahib Singh and Mastan Singh, petitioners have moved this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing of the jail punishments imposed on them. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners have been undergoing life imprisonment in Central Jail, Ambala. They have been awarded jail punishments vide orders dated 11.990, 13990, 11390 and 12390 without following the principles of natural justice. They allege that they were falsely implicated with the accusations on which jail punishments were awarded to them. No `judicial appraisal'' thereof was carried out. The same were not valid. They were not allowed parole or furlough on account of jail punishments.

In the return, the respondentauthorities have pleaded that the petitioners were punished on 12390 and the punishment was rightly awarded, as they had been found in possession of iron bars and iron nails. The jail punishments were got judicially appraised by the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala. On 11990 both the petitioners gave beating to Choto when he was distributing morning meals to the prisoners. This punishment was also got judicially appraised.

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 Admn., AIR 1978 SC 1675. Annexure R 1 dated 15390 is the letter addressed by the Superintendent Central Jail, Ambala to the District & Sessions Judge seeking judicial appraisal. The learned Sessions Judge, appended his endorsement thereon in the following terms :

"Returned in original to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala with the remarks that the judicial appraisal sought for is hereby accorded..."

Annexure R2 is again in the same terms.

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

The above dictum of the apex Court was followed by Ujagar Singh, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Nirbhai Singh v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Recent CR 356 and this Bench in Leelu Ram v. State of Haryana & anr., 1991(3) Recent CR 125.

The above authoritative pronouncements cover the facts of the present case on all fours. I endorse these observations and hold that it was the duty of the learned District and Sessions Judge to have called the convictpetitioners so as to give them an opportunity of pointing out the favourable facts to them and the illegality, if any, committed in the enquiry proceedings by the jail authorities.

I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and set aside the impugned `jail punishment''.

The petitioners claim that they have become entitled to the grant of parole/furlough. A direction is issued to the respondentauthorities to decide the matter of parole/furlough of the petitioners within one month from the date they make such an application.