Criminal Misc. No. M-29954 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-29954 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.2.2011 Davinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. H.P.S. Aulakh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for premature release of the petitioner as per Policy dated 4.2.1993 (Annexure P1). The petitioner was arrested in a case FIR No. 449 dated 14.10.1997, registered at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak, under Section 302 and 34 IPC. The trial Court held the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. The petitioner was undergoing life imprisonment at District Prison, Rohtak. During checking of the jail, a mobile phone, in working condition, was recovered from the petitioner. The Jail Authorities awarded jail punishment and had imposed a cut of Criminal Misc. No. M-29954 of 2010 2 ten days remission upon the petitioner. A primary grievance of the petitioner is that judicial appraisal/approval of the punishment awarded was obtained by the Jail Authorities from the concerned Sessions Judge, Rohtak, without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Mukesh v. Superintendent of Jail, Karnal (Criminal Misc. No. 2157-M of 1993, decided on 14.10.1993) (Annexure P5), wherein it has been held as under:- “...6. So far as appraisal by the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 27.11.90 Annexure R-2 is concerned this order also shows that the petitioner was never summoned and asked whether he made any confession of the offence before the Superintendent Jail. The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to bring to the notice of the Sessions Judge the facts leading to the jail punishment. The order of judicial appraisal is quasi judicial order and it is proper that while judicially appraising the jail punishment a notice be given to the convict to whom jail punishment is awarded so that he may represent his case. In Annexure R2 even this fact is not mentioned that the Sessions Judge had perused the record before giving approval to the punishment. Since judicial concurrence was given in a mechanical manner, it is not proper...” Criminal Misc. No. M-29954 of 2010 3 Further reliance has been placed on Karambir v. State of Haryana 1994(2) Recent Criminal Reports 277, wherein it was held that where the Sessions Judge has neither summoned the accused nor afforded an opportunity of hearing to him, judicial appraisal cannot be said to be appropriate. In Surat Singh v. State of Punjab and Another 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 679, it was held that where an opportunity of hearing is not afforded to the delinquent convict, such a judicial appraisal cannot withstand scrutiny. Learned counsel for the State has filed reply on behalf of the respondent-State stating that vide letter dated 12.3.2009 (Annexure R3), Superintendent, Sessions Court, Rohtak, informed the Jail Authorities that the punishment awarded upon the life convict (the petitioner) and others has been appraised and approved by the District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak. A relevant portion of the communication, received by the Jail Authorities from the Superintendent, Sessions Court, Rohtak, reads as under:- “...I have been directed to refer your letter No. 1886 dated 10.03.2009 on the subject cited above and to inform you that the punishment awarded by you upon life convicts Narinder son of Om Parkash, R/o Village Ahulana District Sonepat, Naresh Kumar son of Mahabir R/o Selanga District Jhajjar, Devender son of Ganga Dutt R/o Bahu Akabar Pur District Rohtak and Tinku son of Raj Singh R/o Dighal District Jhajjar who are confined in your jail has been appraised approved by the learned District and Criminal Misc. No. M-29954 of 2010 4 Sessions Judge, Rohtak...” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that forfeiture of ten days remissions, granted to the petitioner, has been appraised and approved by the District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak, without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Hence, the present petition is disposed of by directing the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, to act in consonance with the law propounded in the above said judgments [Karmbir's and Surat Singh's cases (supra)]. The Sessions Judge shall examine as to whether the confession made by the petitioner was voluntary or has been recorded by the Jail Authorities at their own volition. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present petition, shall also be dealt with by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in accordance with the provisions of law while doing appraisal and approval of the punishment. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 22, 2011 “DK”