W.P.(CRL)/404/2024 of AMAN SHARMA Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 404/2024

AMAN SHARMA

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Anup Kr. Das, Mr. AshishSareen, Advs.Sareen, Advs.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI.....Respondent

Through:Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC, Mr. SangeetSibou, Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Anikate,Advs.ASI Mahesh Pratap, PS Janak PuriSibou, Ms. Priya Rai, Mr. Anikate,Advs.ASI Mahesh Pratap, PS Janak Puri

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R R19.11.2024

1.This is petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of Indiaread with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seekingquashing of punishment ticket dated 07.09.2021.

2.As per the punishment ticket, during the search conducted of the bedof the petitioner, 5 grams of tobacco was found for the purpose of making ofbidi. Hence the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of mulakatfor 28 days, stoppage of canteen facility for 15 days and stoppage of inmatescall facility for 15 days. The punishment was approved by the learnedDistrict and Session Judge on 02.05.2022.

3.Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention toRule 1271(b)(ii) of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 which amongst other things

defines major punishment, which reads as under:-

“1271……

(a) Minor Punishments

(b) Major Punishments

II. Stoppage of recreational facilities up to period of onemonth or canteen facilities for period of 1 month orstoppage of interviews for period of up to three months;”

4.He further states that the stoppage of interviews for period of up to 3months shall be considered as major punishment, there is no minimumperiod and hence any stoppage of mulakat up to 3 months would constitute amajor punishment.

5.He therefore states that for awarding major punishments, theprocedure prescribe under Rule 1272 needs to be strictly followed and thesame has been completely ignored. The said Rule reads as under:-

“1272. For award of major punishment the priosonershould be given notice in writing, calling him to show causewith reference to the alleged violation of Jail rules. Theorder of punishment should also be communicated to theconcerned prisoner.”

6.Mr. Sangeet, learned counsel for the respondent states that apunishment of stoppage of mulakat more than 1 month would constitutemajor punishment.

7.I have learned counsel for the parties.

8.Rule1271(b)(ii)reproducedaboveshowsthatstoppageofinterviews/mulakat up to 3 months would constitute major punishment. Thelanguage of the said Rule is clear and there is no ambiguity. There is nominimum period given in the said Rule and hence stoppage of interviews forany number of days would constitute major punishment and therefore, theRule 1272 needs to be followed. Hence, the stoppage of mulakat under Rule1271(b)(ii) i.e. without issuance of show cause is contrary to Rule 1272 andcannot be sustained.

9.In addition, Rule 1275 reads as under:-

“1275. No prisoner should be punished twice for the same

offence by the same authority.”

10.In the present case, the petitioner has been punished with stoppage ofmulakat for 28 days, stoppage of canteen facility for 15 days and stoppageof inmates call facility for 15 days, which is again punishing the petitionerfor the same offence thrice which is contrary to Rule 1275.

11.For the same reasons, the punishment ticket dated 07.09.2021 isquashed.quashed.

12.The petition is allowed and disposed of.

NOVEMBER 19, 2024/NG

JASMEET SINGH, J