Delhi High Court
Praveen Rana vs State (Govtof Nct Of Delhi on 29 March, 2022
$~ 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.03.2022
+ W.P.(CRL) 242/2022
PRAVEEN RANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshay Bhandari & Mr.Vinayak
Chitale, Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVTOF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Karan Dhalla & Ms. Mizba
Dhebar, Advocates for Mr. Avi Singh,
ASC for the State with SI Prateek
Saxena, PS Samaipur Badli.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
%
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].
1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the petitioner assails a punishment order, dated
08.09.2021, issued by the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail-14,
Mandoli, Delhi, whereby the punishment of stoppage of mulaqaat for
the period of one month was imposed upon the petitioner.
2. Notice was issued in this petition on 03.02.2022, and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:30.03.2022
respondent - State was directed to file a Status Report. The Status
Report has not been filed in terms of the said order. However, it is
handed over in Court today by Mr. Karan Dhalla, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Mr. Avi Singh, learned Additional Standing
Counsel for the State, and a copy has also been handed over to
Mr. Akshay Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The
petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned counsel for
the parties on both sides.
3. Alongwith the Status Report, a copy of the Judicial Appraisal
order, dated 18.12.2021, under Section 46 of the Delhi Prisons Act,
2000 ["DP Act"] read with Rule 47 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 1988,
has also been placed on record, wherein the punishment imposed upon
the petitioner was reduced to stoppage of mulaqaat for 15 days.
Mr. Bhandari states that the Judicial Appraisal order was not brought
to the knowledge of the petitioner, which is why it does not find
mention in the writ petition.
4. Although the period of punishment has already been undergone
by the petitioner, Mr. Bhandari submits that the punishment was
imposed contrary to the procedure contemplated in the Delhi Prison
Rules, 2018 ["the Rules"] and seeks remand to the jail authorities for
reconsideration of the matter.
5. By an order dated 06.06.2018, the petitioner was convicted of
the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising
out of FIR No. 188/2017 registered at Police Station Samaipur Badli.
6. The petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order [CRL.A.
1089/2018] is pending before this Court. In the said appeal, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:30.03.2022
petitioner made an application for interim bail [CRL.M.(Bail)
7624/2020] on the ground that he had to undergo surgery for varicose
veins. By an order dated 17.11.2020, the Division Bench granted
interim bail to the petitioner for a period of four weeks. He was
released on 28.11.2020 and was required to surrender on 25.12.2020.
However, the Status Report records that the petitioner did not
surrender on time and was re-arrested on 03.09.2021, following which
he was produced before the Duty Magistrate.
7. In these circumstances, a Convict History Ticket ["the Ticket"],
dated 04.09.2021, was submitted by the Assistant Jail Superintendent,
Central Jail-14, Mandoli which reads as follows:-
"On 04.09.2021, It has been reported that convict
PRAVEEN RANA @ DILLU S/o SATBIR RANA was
granted Interim Bail for a period of 4 weeks granted by
the Hon'ble DHC vide order dated: 17.11.2020. The
convict was released on 28.11.2020. The date of
surrender was fixed for 25.12.2020. But he didn't
surrender on time. On 03.09.2021 the said convict was
rearrested in same case by Delhi Police and produced
before Hon'ble court Ms. Upasan Satija, Duty
MM(Mahlla)-02,North District, Rohini Courts Delhi.
Hence, in view of above, the convict PRAVEEN RANA
@ DILLU S/O SATBIR RANA has violated terms &
condition mentioned in the Interim Bail and the jail
rules and he may be punished as per provisions of
Delhi Jail Manual, 2018"
8. The punishment order, dated 08.09.2021, was thereafter passed
by the Jail Superintendent. The order reads as follows:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:30.03.2022
"Heard. He has no reasonable excuse for not
surrendering. He has been re arrested in the same case.
For the late surrender one months mulakat stop subject
to approval by the Hon'ble Court.
9. The contention of Mr. Bhandari is that the aforesaid order was
passed without complying with the provisions of the Rules, with
respect to award of punishment. Under Rule 1271 of the Rules,
punishments have been classified into minor punishments and major
punishments. A major punishment under Rule 1271(b)(II), includes
stoppage of interviews for a period of upto three months.
10. The procedure for awarding of punishments is provided in
Rules 1272 and 1273 in the following terms:-
"1272. For award of major punishment the prisoner
should be given notice in writing, calling him to show
cause with reference to the alleged violation of the jail
rules. The order of punishment should also be
communicated to the concerned prisoner.
1273. The Superintendent shall hold an inquiry
touching every prison offence committed or alleged to
have been committed by a prisoner in the prison in a
quasi-judicial manner recording the statements of all
concerned witnesses, giving full opportunity to the
offender for his defense. Confessional statements of the
offender should also be recorded in the presence of two
witnesses. Findings and punishment in the manner
provided in law should be recorded after applying
judicious mind by the Superintendent in his own hand
in the prisoner‟s history ticket. The complete enquiry
file, findings and the punishment awarded shall be
immediately forwarded to the District and Sessions
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:30.03.2022
Judge for obtaining judicial appraisal in all cases
except in cases of formal warning. Where such
information, on account of exigency is difficult to be
forwarded immediately, be given within 2 days of
finding. The Superintendent shall satisfy himself that
every punishment so ordered, is duly carried into effect
in accordance with law:
Provided that the Superintendent, at any time, if
physically incapacitated from making such record,
cause the same to be made in his presence and under
his directions."
11. Mr. Bhandari submits that, even in the Status Report, no show
cause notice has been produced to demonstrate compliance with Rule
1272. It is his further submission that petitioner was, in fact, not heard
by the Jail Superintendent. In any event, Mr. Bhandari points out that
the order of the Jail Superintendent does not record any contentions on
the part of the petitioner. Mr. Bhandari relies upon the orders of this
Court dated 01.04.2019 in W.P.(Crl) 633/2019 [Dalip Singh vs. State
(Govt of NCT of Delhi], and 18.02.2022 in W.P.(Crl) 1849/2021
[Kundan Singh vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi] in respect of his
contentions.
12. Mr. Dhalla, on the other hand, submits that a copy of the Ticket
was handed over to the petitioner, and the petitioner was thus
informed of the charges against him and the punishment contemplated.
Mr. Dhalla states, upon instructions, that the petitioner was, in fact,
heard by the Jail Superintendent, and that the order dated 08.09.2021
was passed in view of the fact that the petitioner did not offer any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:30.03.2022
defence to the allegation that he had surrendered late.
13. It is clear from a reading of Rule 1272 of the Rules that it
requires a notice in writing to be given to a prisoner with reference to
the violation of the rules alleged against him. In the present case, even
according to the Status Report filed, only a copy of the Ticket was
served upon the petitioner. The Ticket mentions the allegation of late
surrender, but does not indicate that the petitioner was given an
opportunity to show cause, or indicate any date upon which he was to
be heard by the Jail Superintendent. It is, in fact, addressed by the
Assistant Jail Superintendent to the Jail Superintendent [through the
Deputy Jail Superintendent] and there is no indication on the face of
the document as the purpose for which a copy was given to the
petitioner. This is inadequate for compliance with Rule 1272. The
judgment of this Court in Kundan Singh (supra) is authority for the
proposition that a major punishment imposed without compliance with
the requirement of giving a show cause notice is liable to be set aside
in writ proceedings.
14. As far as the question of hearing is concerned, the order of the
Superintendent does not record the contentions put forth by the
petitioner. As I have come to the conclusion recorded above that the
show cause notice dated 04.09.2021 was itself inadequate, it is not
necessary to enter into this controversy further. Suffice it to say that,
the order under challenge in Dalip Singh (supra), like in the present
case, also stopping mulaqaat for 15 days, stated "Heard", but did not
elaborate on the defence of the petitioner. The Jail Superintendent was
consequently directed to give post facto hearing to the petitioner in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:30.03.2022
that case.
15. Having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned order of the Jail
Superintendent dated 08.09.2021, as modified by the Judicial
Appraisal order dated 18.12.2021, is set aside. As the petitioner is now
fully aware of the charge against him, the issuance of a show cause
notice at this stage is dispensed with. However, the respondent
authorities will issue a notice to the petitioner for a post facto hearing
before the Jail Superintendent. It is made clear that the Jail
Superintendent will decide the question of whether the petitioner is
liable to imposition of a punishment and, if so, the quantum of
punishment in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
Rules, without reference to the impugned order dated 08.09.2021, as
modified by the Judicial Appraisal order dated 18.12.2021.
16. The petition is disposed of with these directions with no order
as to costs.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 29, 2022
„pv‟/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:30.03.2022
