Nabiul Rahman vs State of U.P. and another

C.S.P. Singh, J.—The Petitioner was convicted Under Sections 305/147/148/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The Petitioner after serving a part of the sentence in jail custody was released by the State Government under order passed u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whereby his remaining part of the sentence was suspended. The order suspending the sentence was to take effect on the Petitioner executing a (sic) to comply with certain conditions let out therein (Annexure "B" to the '' writ petition). This order suspending the sentence was cancelled on 16-9-1970 on the ground that the Petitioner had committed a breach of condition No. 2 of the bond.

It is not disputed that no formal notice was given to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order of cancellation. All that has been alleged in the counter-affidavit that the Sub Inspector of Police informed him of the allegation made against the Petitioner that he had committed a breach of the condition of the bond the order suspending the sentence and directing release of the Petitioner was a valuable one, so far as liberty of tint Petitioner was concerned. This order could not in fairness be cancelled expands, without any notice or an opportunity being given to the Petitioner to show cause against the proposed order of cancellation. The vague information conveyed by the Sub Inspector of police and the Petitioner cannot be a substitute for fan adequate opportunity being given to the Petitioner setting out the reasons on which it was proposed to cancel the earlier order. The absence of such notice is bound to work to the prejudice of the Petitioner inasmuch as he cannot be in a position to know the exact nature of the allegations made against him and neither would he be in a position to give an adequate reply to the authority concretely o such allegations. It is now well settled that principles of natural justice apply even to administrative orders See Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore Vs. The State of Mysore and Another, and A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . So even if, the order u/s 401 Code of Criminal Procedure is an administrative; order, it was incumbent upon the authority cancelling the order to have apprised the Petitioner of the exact nature of the allegations made against him and to afford an adequate opportunity to meet those charges. Since this has not been done, the impugned order dated 19-9-1970 (Annexure ''C'' to the writ petition) has to be quashed.

Counsel for the Petitioner ha also urged that an order of cancellation passed on the ground that there has been, a breach of the condition of the bond, cannot be passed in the absence of proceedings u/s 228 of the IPC. This contention need not be considered in the present case, as the Petitioner is entitled to relief on the first contention.

The petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 16-9-1970 (Annexure "C" lb the petition) is quashed. The Petitioner is entitled to costs.