Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the punishment ticket dated 01-09-2023 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Navin Chawla, J., set aside the punishment ticket stating that the Inspecting Judge had failed to consider the circumstances of the case while granting his judicial appraisal.
Background
It was alleged that on 01-09-2023, during the mandatory search conducted by the Central Reserve Police Force in Deodhy, approximately 50 gms of tobacco was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, and the same was seized vide seizure memo dated 01-09-2023.
Subject to appraisal by the District and Sessions Judge, the petitioner was given punishment for stoppage of 10 days mulakat and 10 days of canteen facilities. The Additional District Judge (‘Inspecting Judge’) approved the punishment awarded to him vide order dated 21-10-2023.
The petitioner contended that he could not have been present at Deodhy since for entering the same, the petitioner would either have to be on duty there or have to be called for a legal meeting, and in any case, the inmates are not allowed to be in Deodhy beyond 5:30 PM.
The petitioner also contended that as per Rule 1273 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, in all cases except the cases related to a formal warning, the complete inquiry file along with the findings and the punishment awarded has to be immediately forwarded to the District and Sessions Judge for obtaining a judicial appraisal and that his case was forwarded after much delay.
The respondent stated that the petitioner had come to Deodhy to take the dispatch number of his application seeking furlough after he received verbal permission from the officer concerned on the intercom.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that one of the peculiar circumstances of the case was that the petitioner submitted that he could not have been at Deodhy at the time that the tobacco was recovered. The Court also noted that even if the petitioner was granted permission to be in Deodhy, why such permission would be granted for staying beyond 5:30 PM was not considered by the Inspecting Judge while granting his judicial appraisal to the petitioner.
Further, the Court also noted that there was a delay in forwarding the punishment inquiry to the Inspecting Judge, which was in contravention of Rule 1273 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court allowed the petition and held that the punishment ticket dated 01-09-2023 issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Delhi and all orders passed as a consequence of the ticket were to be set aside.
[Vikram Pal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3887, Order dated 13-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Chetan Bhardwaj, Advocate Priyal Bhardwaj, Advocate Avanish Prabhat Chandra
For Respondent — ASC Rupali Bandhopadhya, Advocate Sagar Mehlawat, Advocate Abhijeet Kumar
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
