AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.D. Bajaj, J.
On 26th April, 1982 learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, convicted detenu petitioner Dharampal of the commission of the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. While undergoing the sentence Dharampal is alleged to have beaten convict headmen Kalu Ram on 26th June, 1988 and quarrelled with another convict headman Prithi on 30th June, 1988. On 1st July, 1988, Superintendent, District Jail, Rohtak, ordered reduction in status of the delinquent convict headman Dharampal and reduced him as ordinary prisoner for three months.
Criminal Misc. No. 10882M of 1990 has been filed by delinquent detenu Dharampal for quashing of the jail punishment on the grounds that the accusation against him is false, that no enquiry in respect of either of the two incidents aforesaid was conducted by Superintendent Jail and that judicial appraisal of the Punishment was accorded without issuance of any notice to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
I have heard Shrimati Veena Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner, Shri K.S.Malik, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 3 and have carefully gone through the relevant record.
In fact, it was a matter of maintaining discipline inside jail through convictheadman. In case the convictheadman started quarrelling with each other inside jail, the discipline inside the jail was likely to be shattered thereby. This was presumably the reason which prompted Superintendent Jail, Rohtak, to order the holding of a complete enquiry in this regard by the assistant Superintendent, jail, concerned. Besides the fact finding enquiry conducted by the Assistant Superintendent, detenu petitioner Dharampal is also recorded to have confessed the lapse attributed to him before the Superintendent Jail on 30th June,1988. Leaving aside the enquiry report the confession aforesaid justifies punishment. Judicial appraisal was accorded the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, on 1st August,1988. Letter No. 4138 dated 1st August, 1988 addressed to Superintendent Jail, Rohtak in this regard reads :
"No. 4138 dated 1.8.88
To
The Superintendent,
District Jail,
Rohtak.
Sub : Judicial appraisal of punishment awarded to life convict No.2319/c Dharam Pal/S/o Jai Dayal on 3061988 and 171988.
Memo.
Please refer to your memo No. 4806 dated 6788 on the subject noted above.
The punishment awarded to convict No.2319/c Dharam Pal s/o Jai Dayal has been judicially appraised and approved.
Sd/ District & Sessions
Judge, Rohtak."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the observations made in Inderjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1982(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter 129, Harnek Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1984(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 49, Nirbhai Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1988(1) Recent Criminal Reports 356 and Sukhmandar Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1990(3) Recent Criminal Reports 122 and urged that the enquiry having not been conducted by the Superintendent Jail, himself in conformity with the procedure set out in sections 45 and 46 of the Prisons Act and the judicial appraisal having not been expeditiously obtained as envisaged in law order of punishment falls through and is liable to be quashed.
The argument is wholly without merit and the authorities cited do not support it. As already stated, it was a matter of maintaining discipline inside the Jail amongst inmates who has been given the exalted status of convict headman. This is why Superintendent Jail got a complete inquiry made from the Assistant Superintendent Jail and further more the delinquent detenu petitioner Dharmpal himself confessed the lapse before the Jail Superintendent. Report when perused along with the confessions of the delinquent was due compliance of statutory safeguard envisaged in sections 45 and 46 of the Prisons Act and could reasonably justify the imposition of penalty ordered by the Jail Superintendent. Judicial appraisal, as already notice, was duly obtained.
Criminal Misc.filed by the detenu petitioner for quashing of the jail punishment dated 1st July, 1988 is thus rendered wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed.