Karamvir vs State of Haryana

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Karamvirpetitioner is undergoing imprisonment in District Jail, Karnal after his conviction in a case, vide judgment dated 28.7.1982. During his confinement in jail, on 10.2.1984, he was alleged to have quarrelled with his coprisoners Som Nath, Ajit and Kartar while gambling. A currency note of Rs. 100/ which was being used as stake money was recovered from Banwari. For this offence the petitioner was awarded a punishment of wearing crossbarfetters for 240 hours. On the intervening night of 16/17.10.1989 the prisoner was on duty at beat No. 1 of the main wall but when the Superintendent Jail made a surprise visit he found him missing from his duty beat and for this offence he was awarded punishment of reversion from C.N.W. to simple prisoner for three months only.

The petitioner alleged that he was awarded jail punishments without following any procedure established by law. No proceedings were recorded nor any opportunity was granted to him to defend his case. The Sessions Judge also did not appraise the punishments judiciously. He has, thus, filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the jail punishments awarded to him.

In the return filed by the respondents it was maintained that on 10.2.1984 the petitioner was found gambling and quarrelling with other convicts so punishment imposing crossbar fetters for 240 hours was rightly awarded. Similarly on the second occasion the petitioner was found absent from his beat duty which was a gross misconduct on his part and he was, thus, reverted from C.N.W. to simple prisoner for three months. The punishments awarded to the petitioner were got judiciously appraised from District and Sessions Judge, Karnal. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend and plead his case before the punishing authority and he was heard at the time he was awarded punishments.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there was no proper judicial appraisal of the punishments awarded to the petitioner. The Sessions Judge, Karnal, did not summon the petitioner nor heard him before approving the punishment awarded. This contention of the learned counsel holds good. The petitioner was convicted twice once for the offence of gambling and quarrelling with other convicts on 10.2.1984. There is nothing in the return filed by the respondent to suggest that any enquiry was conducted before holding the petitioner guilty for gambling and quarrelling with coprisoners. No witness was examined nor any opportunity was granted to the petitioner to crossexamine the witnesses nor he was afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him. The punishment awarded to the petitioner at that occasion was not got judiciously appraised from the concerned Sessions Judge.

On the second occasion the petitioner was alleged to be missing from his duty beat and from C.N.W. he was reverted to a simple prisoner for three months. This matter was referred to the Sessions Judge vide letter dated 21.12.1989 and in reply to this letter Superintendent in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Karnal, sent reply on 8.1.1990 copy of which is Annexure R/2, which is as follows :

"I am desired to inform you that learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, has been pleased to approve the action taken against the undertrial Karamvir son of Banarsi in respect of jail offences committed by him."

Copy of any order passed by the Sessions Judge approving the punishment awarded to the petitioner has not been produced. This letter does not show that any record was produced before the learned Sessions Judge and he approved the punishment after going through the same. Admittedly, the petitioner was never summoned by the Sessions Judge nor he was given an opportunity of being heard before approval of the punishment. So judicial concurrence, if any, was given in a mechanical manner and without taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.

As no proper procedure was followed before awarding punishment to the petitioner by the Superintendent Jail nor there was any proper judicial appraisal of the punishments awarded to the petitioner, the same stands vitiated.

As a result I accept this petition and quash the punishment awarded to the petitioner on 10.2.1984 and 19.12.1989.